Clothing Examination--JFK's Shirt

[John Dolva]

These images are still distorted so I have no idea of the original sizing. You can stretch skew and rotate the original to get a result. to suit.

______________________

The HSCA full shirt photo has a two foot ruler. The enlargement of the small area around the hole has a one inch ruler. The back autopsy photo has a 30 cm ruler.

The HSCA full shirt photo is taken obliquely which significantly changes dimensions.

The back autopsy photo is of a contoured back which is leaning away from the camera so the dimension changes are like on the HSCA photo but in the other direction.

The WC full shirt photo is very much more a true birds eye view of the shirt.

I recommend scaling up to the largest photo which is the back autopsy photo. First enlarge the full shirt to where the ruler is half of the two foot ruler. Then take the one inch enlargement and scale that to an inch on the full shirt photo.

This one inch enlargement has clearly defined pin stripes. Resize the area at the hole on the full shirt photo to this spacing.

Now you have the back photo and the shirt photo area around the hole at the same scale. Everything away from this area is not to scale. So it's within this area one must find matches.

Here the WC photo is more useful as it has not been flattened out like the HSCA one. The folds and creases and discolorations are more as they were originally. There the matches in this area are to be found.

[Cliff Varnell]

FBI Agent Henry Heiberger informed me that he X-rayed the hole in the shirt.

FWIW...interesting hearsay...

About 7 years ago my sister became acquainted with one of Henry Heiberger's

immediate family members, who spoke guardedly of Heiberger's work

on the Kennedy case.

The story my sister got was that Heiberger regarded the Warren Report as

a lie -- and that he'd never tell the truth about his examination of JFK's shirt

out of fear for his family and his pension.

As I say, FWIW....

[Thomas H. Purvis]

FBI Agent Henry Heiberger informed me that he X-rayed the hole in the shirt.

FWIW...interesting hearsay...

About 7 years ago my sister became acquainted with one of Henry Heiberger's

immediate family members, who spoke guardedly of Heiberger's work

on the Kennedy case.

The story my sister got was that Heiberger regarded the Warren Report as

a lie -- and that he'd never tell the truth about his examination of JFK's shirt

out of fear for his family and his pension.

As I say, FWIW....

My Discussions with Henry Heiberger transpired in the early 1990's time period, and somewhere I have a log book of the dates with a few notes, etc; taken during the discussions.

It took me multiple calls in verification with Gallagher; Heilman; and Heiberger (there was one other whom I can not exactly recall yet, mainly due to the fact that he spent all of his time at Oak Ridge with Gallagher; Heilman was back and forth; and Heiberger stayed in the lab.

After my having informed Heiberger of Frazier's testimony, which seemed to be the first time that he had ever heard that as stated about examination of the coat, Heiberger informed me that he had completed the lab analysis data sheets on each and every piece of clothing tested, for each and every test.

That he absolutely had conducted no examnation of the coat and no one would have taken a control/comparison sample up by the collar.

Also the previously stated information relative to X-ray of the tie and the metallic residue found as well as the examination of the hole in the back of the shirt.

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

So, as early as the early 1990's, Henry Heiberger knew that something was wrong. (assuming that he told me the facts and truth, and he had no reason to do otherwise that I am aware of).

So long as JEH was alive and in charge, it is fully understandable as to why Heiberger and any other FBI personel with any knowledge of the assassination kept quiet.

Just as it is also understandable why they remained so.

[Cliff Varnell]

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

[Cliff Varnell]

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

Hunt refers to a conversation with Heiberger in "Frazier Speaks," which would have

been earlier this decade, I presume.

If you're on good terms with Hunt, perhaps he'll share his conversation

with you.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Ashton Gray]

These images are still distorted so I have no idea of the original sizing.

No, they are not distorted. They are exactly what was pulled off the web, HERE for the clothing, and HERE for the autopsy photo. With those, anybody at all can duplicate what I did in the flat-shirt version, or do their own experiment to their heart's content.

You can stretch skew and rotate the original to get a result to suit.

Thanks. Having spent 20+ years in the handling and editing of images, I'm fairly well aware of what can be done and what can't be done. I also understand fundamental concepts of intent: whether to deceive or to help undo the effects of deception. And with that understanding, I don't mind saying that I resent your implication in ways that not only this forum, but the limits of human language itself, prevent me from adequately expressing.

The HSCA full shirt photo has a two foot ruler.

I have some ideas for what you can do with it.

Here the WC photo is more useful as it has not been flattened out like the HSCA one. The folds and creases and discolorations are more as they were originally. There the matches in this area are to be found.

Because I respect your work, I'll very much look forward to your version of a match.

Ashton

Edited January 16, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

Hunt refers to a conversation with Heiberger in "Frazier Speaks," which would have

been earlier this decade, I presume.

If you're on good terms with Hunt, perhaps he'll share his conversation

with you.

I believe that they all started hunting Frazier & others after I let the cat out of the bag on Lancer some years back, as well as provided a group of names and addresses.

It is actually irrelevant to me personally what Heiberger did or did not tell Hunt.

I know what he told me, and that is all that I care about!

[Cliff Varnell]

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

Hunt refers to a conversation with Heiberger in "Frazier Speaks," which would have

been earlier this decade, I presume.

If you're on good terms with Hunt, perhaps he'll share his conversation

with you.

I believe that they all started hunting Frazier & others after I let the cat out of the bag on Lancer some years back, as well as provided a group of names and addresses.

It is actually irrelevant to me personally what Heiberger did or did not tell Hunt.

I know what he told me, and that is all that I care about!

The hunting of Frazier was despicable.

The intellectual dishonesty of "Frazier Speaks" is egregious.

John Hunt very publicly accused Frazier of obstruction of justice

before he ever bothered to speak with the man.

Hunt took Frazier's comments out of context to create the impression

that Frazier told him 3 different "stories" about the FBI lab 11/22-23/63.

Hunt needed a body count -- Hunt always needs a body count.

Hunt has done some good work...Unfortunately he's also responsible for

arguably the worst work done by a professed CT in the case.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

Hunt refers to a conversation with Heiberger in "Frazier Speaks," which would have

been earlier this decade, I presume.

If you're on good terms with Hunt, perhaps he'll share his conversation

with you.

I believe that they all started hunting Frazier & others after I let the cat out of the bag on Lancer some years back, as well as provided a group of names and addresses.

It is actually irrelevant to me personally what Heiberger did or did not tell Hunt.

I know what he told me, and that is all that I care about!

The hunting of Frazier was despicable.

The intellectual dishonesty of "Frazier Speaks" is egregious.

John Hunt very publicly accused Frazier of obstruction of justice

before he ever bothered to speak with the man.

Hunt took Frazier's comments out of context to create the impression

that Frazier told him 3 different "stories" about the FBI lab 11/22-23/63.

Hunt needed a body count -- Hunt always needs a body count.

Hunt has done some good work...Unfortunately he's also responsible for

arguably the worst work done by a professed CT in the case.

Well, unless Hunt spoke with Gallagher; Heilman; and Heiberger, he may have not gotten the full story.

Frazier was not of the Spectrographic analysis section of the lab. He was from the Firearms/toolmark section.

The Spectro guys did not think too much of Frazier.

Frazier was sent up to Oak Ridge to "check" on the NAA, etc; and visited the Lab in D.C. but according to Gallagher & Heiberger, he had no true understandings of the spectro & NAA work.

And although I personally got straight answers from Frazier, I also asked only straight and direct questions.

And, even this demonstrated that he knew much more than he was actually letting on, or most likely ever to tell.

We got on relatively friendly terms as he was a collector of JFK books, and I had two early paperback copies of a book which he did not have.

Gave him one, but got decent conversations with him for the sacrifice.

However, I never "put him on the spot" either, as I did not want to close the chain of communication.

And again, he had apparantly either known or met Melvin Purvis personally, and we had extended talks about JEH's treatment of Melvin.

[John Dolva]

the shirt is skewed and compressed

left: HSCA, right: your original, and middle: original corrected to match HSCA

[Ashton Gray]

the shirt is skewed and compressed

left: HSCA, right: your original, and middle: original corrected to match HSCA

In the "flat" anim, no skewing or "compressing" or any other operation was run on the images of either the body or the shirt except to brighten them, size the shirt approximately to the body, rotating the shirt to the shown position. Period.

Do you have your monitor calibrated for pincushioning, barreling, or skew?

And why won't you show an anim with your results instead of continuing to obliquely accuse me of lying? Why won't you show where the shirt hole falls in relation to the back with your results using the same two images? I keep urging you to post them.

Ashton

[John Dolva]

also you didn't use that particular version of the back photo. There are a few around. I think you used this one. (I've added ruler markings from another photo of the ruler that shows makings)

EDIT:: I'm not accussing you of lying. There's no need to introduce that concept at all. The shirt image from the gif IS skewed and compressed. Simply overlaying it on the HSCA shows it.So there's no need to argue about that, it's not a matter of opinion.

Once we have this resolved I can know the scaling and show my version of how I see it. If we are just using different images that's all we show.

I have a flat lcd screen

Edited January 17, 2007 by John Dolva

[Ashton Gray]

also you didn't use that particular version of the back photo. There are a few around. I think you used this one.

I'll allow that that's possible, since I do have several versions of the back photo, but I thought I had started with the image linked to above at Lancer. If not, I was wrong on that point. That said, I consider it immaterial. (Thank God I wasn't talking about a shirt image when I said "immaterial.")

I'm not accussing you of lying. There's no need to introduce that concept at all.

The concept was introduced by you by implication, whether that was your intention or not. I'm only dealing with the concept already introduced by you. I've said till I'm blue in the face that all that was done to either image in the "flat" anim was uniform scaling and rotating. You've consistently implied that that what I had said was not true by insisting that the images in that anim were distorted.

The shirt image from the gif IS skewed and compressed. Simply overlaying it on the HSCA shows it.So there's no need to argue about that, it's not a matter of opinion.

Okay. If that's the result you're getting, that's the result you're getting. If it's a matter of our using different base images, one (or both—who knows?) of which have some inherent distortion (relative to what other than each other, I couldn't say), okay. Such distortions were NOT introduced here. I have no reason or desire to argue the point at all.

And all of the above goes back to my original statement: What I did was within reasonable acceptable tolerances to ->MY<- satisfaction. And that includes your latest posting of your images indicating what you feel so strongly is some kind of distortion in one (or both? I can't tell) of the base images.

I look forward to your results.

Once we have this resolved I can know the scaling and show my version of how I see it.

We have nothing to resolve. I did something I felt answered a question to my own satisfaction within acceptable tolerances and posted the results for others to consider.

Those tolerances obviously aren't to your satisfaction. By all means please set up the experiment using any of the image versions you feel are applicable and acceptable, and size them by any scale you feel applicable and acceptable, and post the results. Please. You certainly can do this independently of anything I've done.

Ashton

[John Dolva]

The starting point in this is me suggesting you had scaled the photos incorrectly. I've already, then and since, outlined how I think it should be done. In order to show, without any doubts creeping in through the use of different images, I pointed out that there appeared to be a cloned on piece of shoulder on the shirt. You insisted this was not the case and I looked again and found the shirt image distorted. You then informed that you had indeed done that and posted the original undistorted. OK fine, except it's not undistorted. Anyone can check that for themselves. So it was back to square one, how to show how you were miscaling without using different images.

We've resolved the autopsy one. "If not, I was wrong on that point." it is and you were. OK, thats fine.

Ego turns mistakes into lies. I can't tell you how to react to my posts. I simply pointed out a problem as I saw it. That's the only concept I introduced. I have consistently showed that the images are skewed and compressed. It's plain to see. A rip of the frames and a transarency comparison shows it without doubt.

So back to square one, I don't know what shirt/back scaling you started with, so I can't show the mistakes. All I can say is that:

"The HSCA full shirt photo has a two foot ruler. The enlargement of the small area around the hole has a one inch ruler. The back autopsy photo has a 30 cm ruler.

The HSCA full shirt photo is taken obliquely which significantly changes dimensions.

The back autopsy photo is of a contoured back which is leaning away from the camera so the dimension changes are like on the HSCA photo but in the other direction.

The WC full shirt photo is very much more a true birds eye view of the shirt.

I recommend scaling up to the largest photo which is the back autopsy photo. First enlarge the full shirt to where the ruler is half of the two foot ruler. Then take the one inch enlargement and scale that to an inch on the full shirt photo.

This one inch enlargement has clearly defined pin stripes. Resize the area at the hole on the full shirt photo to this spacing.

Now you have the back photo and the shirt photo area around the hole at the same scale. Everything away from this area is not to scale. So it's within this area one must find matches.

Here the WC photo is more useful as it has not been flattened out like the HSCA one. The folds and creases and discolorations are more as they were originally. There the matches in this area are to be found."

That's how I would do it and it would show that the hole you have is wrong. That's one thing. However the starting point was that I can show you how you made a mistake in scaling.

The reason for the regular grid in the background of the group of three is to show how the image is distorted. The middle one is the ditortion corrected to match an overlay on the HSCA.It's clear that the third image you posted in the gif is skewed and compressed.