The Blatant Disingenuousness Of A Conspiracy Theorist On Full Display
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11023&view=findpost&p=119124
The above-linked message, which was posted at another JFK Forum by a
devout conspiracy theorist, is an excellent example of how some CTers
will completely skew the true, known facts relating to a particular
sub-topic connected with John F. Kennedy's assassination.
The CTer in question, who apparently believes in all kinds of kooky
shit that never happened with respect to the holes in JFK's clothes,
decided it would be a good idea to do the following hatchet job on the
testimony of Dr. James J. Humes (in order to evidently promote his
insane pro-conspiracy idea of JFK being shot in the back a SECOND time
on Elm Street on 11/22/63):
~~~~~~~~
"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
{DVP Interjection: The emphasis above belongs to the CT-Kook, not to
Humes; at this point, the CTer just cuts off Humes' words, sans even a
period or three dots after the word "defect", which would indicate
that there's more to this paragraph than what is written here;
instead, the CTer jumps much further down in the testimony, starting
up again when Arlen Specter asks this...}
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."
~~~~~~~
{The CT-Kook then gives us his evaluation of the above hacked-to-
pieces testimony...}
"Well! Since there were in effect two separate and distinctive bullet
holes through the rear of the coat of JFK, then I would think that
even my "first year law" student/son could easily throw that one back
at Mr. "B".
P.S. For those not aware, the "coat collar" bullet hole was as a
result of the third shot impact down in front of James Altgens."
[END KOOK QUOTES.]
======================
So that unaware people will have ready access to the uninterrupted
testimony of Dr. Humes, which will clearly demonstrate the total
misrepresentation of the facts that have been blatantly skewed and
snipped via the above CTer's post, let me now show everyone the
sections of Dr. Humes' testimony that a certain conspiracist wanted to
hide:
Mr. SPECTER - Taking 393 at the start, Doctor Humes, will you describe
for the record what hole, if any, is observable in the back of that
garment which would be at or about the spot you have described as
being the point of entry on the President's back or lower neck.
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.
Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you
have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches
below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle
seam of the coat?
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.
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.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
~~~~~~~~
The disingenuousness and downright deception displayed by that
conspiracy theorist is simply disgraceful. For, he had to know that
these words were also uttered by Dr. Humes regarding the hole in
President Kennedy's jacket (but the CTer's own "plot"-favoring agenda
obviously prevented him from inserting these critical words into his
forum post):
"...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." -- J.J. Humes
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85290a6703a31221
Gerry Simone (O)
Humes testimony is not super clear but I believe he says (or meant) that
the FBI memo attached to the jacket indicates that a sample was cut from
the bullet hole and also from 'under the collar' above that hole for
control purposes.
It was his interpretation (based on that memo) of his examination of the
suit jacket exhibit, that the upper defect seen is where the control
sample was taken by the FBI.
Also, it can't be a bullet hole when he says it didn't go thru the garment
like the other (lower) defect.
David, there are examples of both CTs and LNs of misrepresenting facts for
their own agendas or theories.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190350801.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11050
TOM PURVIS BLUBBERED:
>>> "Of course, Mr. Von Pein does not wish to become even more confused
with the facts which he quite obviously never bothered to research." <<<
DVP SAYS:
LOL time.
Why should I "research" wholly-subjective and skewed-beyond-all- tolerance
Kook Facts? Where is that going to lead me (except on a long and agonizing
trip down CTer Dead-End Boulevard with the likes of Tom P. and many others
who, for some reason, like to interpret the evidence in crazy ways that no
reasonable person could possibly interpret the very same evidence)?
The amount of insanity and evidence-mangling within Tom's last couple of
posts above should make him blush beet-red with embarrassment....for, how
anyone who supposedly has examined the totality of evidence in the John F.
Kennedy case could utter some of the garbage Thomas H. Purvis has uttered
is just beyond all belief.
The main reason to KNOW that Tom is full of massive quantities of
excrement regarding his make-believe "2 Head Shots" theory and the Warren
Commission's subsequent "intentional misrepresentation of the simple facts
of the assassination of JFK" (Tom's exact quote) is this common-sense
reason......
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL REASON UNDER THE MOON FOR THE
WARREN COMMISSION OR THE FBI (ETC.) TO WANT TO ENGAGE IN THE KIND OF
"INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTION" THAT THOMAS H. PURVIS SAYS DID OCCUR WITH
RESPECT TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION IN 1963.
Why?
Because, per Tom's own theory, ALL of the shots DID come from Lee Harvey
Oswald's Carcano, and the shots all DID come from Oswald's Sniper's Nest
on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Therefore, why in the world would the WC, FBI (et al) have possessed any
desire to put forth some kind of cockeyed ALTERNATE and FALSE shooting
scenario that would STILL LEAD BACK TO THE VERY SAME LONE-
ASSASSIN-NAMED-OSWALD CONCLUSION THAT TOM THINKS IS THE ACTUAL TRUTH?
It's just.....idiotic.
Just like all other reasoned-thinking individuals who have studied the
facts in evidence surrounding the JFK case, I know there was just ONE
BULLET HOLE in JFK's coat jacket, and just ONE bullet hole in his shirt,
and just ONE bullet hole in his upper back.
And, like all reasonable people who have looked into the case, I know that
JFK was struck just ONE time in the head (from behind, at Z313).
Tom evidently thinks Kennedy was hit TWICE in the head from behind. If he
truly believes this, he's made this up from sheer whole cloth and nothing
more. Because President Kennedy had ONE bullet entry hole in the back of
his head and only one such wound. Not two.
Yes, there is still the lingering debate of exactly WHERE (to the square
inch) on the back of JFK's head that one entry wound was....the cowlick
area or nearer the EOP.
But there's NO DEBATE amongst the autopsy doctors or the FPP of the HSCA
regarding the TOTAL NUMBER of bullet entry holes in JFK's head -- it was
ONE. Without a shred of a doubt. Even avid conspiracist Dr. Cyril Wecht
agrees with his FPP colleagues on that fact.
Let's listen to Dr. James Humes in 1967 (via a CBS-TV special):
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."
DAN RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the
right of the mid-line posteriorly."
DAN RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front
and right side of the President's head."
DAN RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly.
The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as
it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or
bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific
evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through
the President's skull."
DAN RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
DAN RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
~~~~~
I guess Dr. Humes was merely telling more blatant lies and continuing the
"intentional misrepresentation of the simple facts of the assassination of
JFK" when he uttered the above words to a U.S. audience of millions in
June of 1967, right Tom?
David Von Pein
testimony?" <<<
Yes, he was (CE393, shown below, which was marked into evidence under that
CE number while Humes was on the witness stand).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0025a.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
Tom Purvis is pretty much the ONLY single-assassin theorist on the
Education Forum, and yet DVP uses Purvis to put down CTs!
Priceless!!! For the record, Tom and John Canal are similar in that
they believe Oswald acted alone, but that there was a subsequent cover-
up of various aspects of the evidence. But does DVP confront Canal?
No. He attacks Purvis, and uses Purvis' purported zaniness to put
down members of a Forum from which he was booted, not because he was a
single-assassin theorist, but because he refused to reveal his real
identity.
For the record, Purvis is right on a number of points. If you go to
chapter 2b at patspeer.com you'll see that both the Secret Service and
the FBI, whether deliberately or by mistake, concluded in December 63
that the head shot at 313 was the second shot. This is not CT
speculation. This is a fact. Purvis believes they were right, and
that the WC swirled everything around to make the evidence--which
they'd failed to properly understand--fit the single-bullet theory.
The thought occurs that DVP believes that anyone proposing a
conspiracy of any type--whether to kill JFK or cover up the evidence--
is a conspiracy theorist. In such case, VB is a conspiracy theorist.
By holding with the cowlick entry, he is proposing that Humes,
Boswell, and Finck, after looking at the body during the autopsy, and
after inspecting the autopsy photos TWICE, LIED about the location of
the entry wound, and LIED about seeing this wound in the photos. To
assert that these doctors were merely mistaken all three times is
preposterous beyond belief.
David Von Pein
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/
TOM PURVIS GUSHED THE FOLLOWING IDIOCY (WHICH IS TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED
BY ANYONE IN OFFICIALDOM OR BY THE AUTOPSY REPORT):
"Furthermore, that bullet which penetrated through the coat collar and
thereafter struck JFK at the edge of the hairline of the neck, and
thereafter "tunneled" through the soft flesh of the neck to strike JFK
in the EOP region of the skull, did so after JFK was leaning well
forward with his head down."
DVP CAN ONLY:
LOL!
I can't wait to read Mr. Purvis' next wholly-unsupportable theory re.
JFK's wounds. It should be a howl.
And I just love the way Tom relies much more heavily on eyewitness
accounts (like those of James Altgens and Emmett Hudson) with respect to
the wounds on JFK, rather than place more heavy reliance on the MUCH
BETTER EVIDENCE provided by the autopsy doctors and the autopsy report
which was produced by those doctors. (Not to mention the autopsy photos
and X-rays.)
But, being a person who apparently loves chaff much better than wheat, I
guess Tom would rather rely more on what Emmett Hudson thought he saw in
those eight unexpected seconds of pure confusion and horror, rather than
place his faith in such people as Humes, Finck, and Boswell.
Crazy, man. Crazy.
Brokedad
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
Chris,
Stick with the "two head shots"!
You just may ultimately find that you are by far more correct than
most who expouse on the subject.
David Von Pein says:
Of course, Mr. Purvis has skewed things above. He's mixing his
fruits.
Chris incorrectly said earlier that OSWALD had made "two head shots",
which (naturally) is dead wrong.
Chris wasn't talking about "two head shots" in the context of one shot
coming from Oswald and one other head shot coming from the front.
And if there were two head shots (one from the front), as Mr. Purvis
seems to be indicating.....Why was the LEFT side of JFK's head
completely intact after the shooting?
Lucky plotters....again.
There was no end to the good fortune of those JFK assassins, it would
seem. Per Ollie Stone, THREE guns were popping away within a pre-
planned 1-Patsy plot, and yet (amazingly) EVERY scrap of ballistics
evidence recovered after the event either leads back to Lee Harvey
Oswald's rifle conclusively or is at least consistent with his MC
rifle.
You don't get lucky like that every day of the week. The shooters must
have been born under a (very!) lucky star-one and all.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
Chris;
Mr. Purvis's "fruits" are just fine.
1. LHO was an absolutely excellent shot.
2. The 91/38 6.5mm Carcano was an excellent weapon.
3. Three shots were fired in the course of the assassination.
4. All shots fired, came from the location at the sixth floor window
of the TSDB.
5. Lastly! Stick with your two head shot impact scenario, and you will
always be far more correct than those who proclaim to know something
about the assassination.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
The "other" headshot which no one has bothered to inform you of.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
And, just in case you have any other questions, the first headshot
(second shot fired) at Z313 was located at stationing 4+65.3,
approximately 30 feet back up Elm St., prior to the impact point of
the third/last shot.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
David Von Pein says:
TOM UTTERED:
"The "other" headshot which no one has bothered to inform you of."
DVP:
But, naturally, Mr. Purvis knows all about that "second" head shot.
Stick with Tom Purvis everybody! He knows WAY, WAY more than the WC,
HSCA, et al!
After all....he's Tom Purvis!
David Von Pein says:
And Mr. Purvis, btw, is also the same person who decided it was wise
to completely misrepresent Dr. Humes' testimony with respect to JFK's
clothing holes.
To get a good idea as to the tactics used by a typical CTer (like Mr.
Purvis), go to the link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bac6812ff9d8f836
Andy Schatner says:
All I can say to those who believe in the Warren Commission and
Bugliosi's Reclaiming History is to check your beliefs at the door and
read the "Whitewash" books written by the late Harold Weisberg. These
series of books, which were self-published in the late 60s up until
the mid 70s, prove that Oswald didn't shoot anybody on that fateful
November day and that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
And where does he get this supposed evidence? From the Warren
Commissions own files! His Case Open book refutes the conclusions of
Posner's Case Closed and had Weisberg lived a little longer, he would
probably have a response to Bugliosi's book as well. To this day, not
one Warren Commission defender has yet to refute any of Weisberg's
claims. All evidence Harold has uncovered through his Freedom Of
Information suits is now held in the Weisberg Archives at Hood
College, in Frederick Maryland and is available for any researcher to
use. I find it interesting that not one Warren Commission defender
bothers to read any of his books-probably because if they did, they
would not be able defend the report anymore. One thing is certain. The
Commission had no intention of solving the "crime of the century". A
Top Secret transcript Harold uncovered records the commission members
own words {I'm paraphrasing here} saying that J. Edgar Hoover says
their was a lone assassin and three bullets and that they have no
other choice but to come to those conclusions as well, therefore
guaranteeing that all good leads would eventually grow cold over time.
I challenge anyone who disagrees to read at least one of his books
before responding to this post.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
To get a good grasp on the location of the Presidential Limo at the
time of impact of the third/last/final shot, go to the testimony of
James Altgens and Mr. Emmett Hudson.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
Mr. HUDSON- I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place
right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the
motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying
to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking
right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
Mr. HUDSON - Right along there is about where President Kennedy's car
was when he was hit - at the time I was looking right at him when the
shot struck him, when the bullet struck him.
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
right along in there.
---------------
Mr. Hudson clearly witnessed the SECOND SHOT impact to the head of JFK
at Z313, just as did numerous others witnesses, including the SS.
However, James Altgens, who was located over 30 feet farther down Elm
St, clearly observed the last shot fired also strike JFK in the head.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the
car from my position-I mean the first shot, and being fireworks-who
counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of
pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for
the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between.
There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the
head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree
of certainty.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time--well, he was in a position- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it
indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head.
Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline
included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his
forehead or face- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the
opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building,
but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture-now,
just let me back up here-I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z343.jpg
Now! That some persons are so lacking in research ability that they
have to believe the completely illogical claim of the WC that one of
the shots completely missed (the President; the car; the street;
etc;),
-----------------
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm
-----------------
does not mean that the remainder of the educated world is so void of
reading comprehension ability that they do not have the ability to
read and understand the accurate statements of those persons who were
present and witnessed the events on 11/22/63.
Lastly, it has always been quite simple to confuse either the CT'er's
as well as the great majority of the LN'er's with the simple facts.
Three shots were fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB.
All shots fired, came from the Model 91/38 Carcano rifle recovered
from that location.
And, each of the three shots fired, struck JFK.
In event that Mr. Von Pein wishes to believe in "THE SHOT THAT
MISSED"; the EASTER BUNNEY; the TOOTH FAIRY" or even in the CT
"MULTIPLE ASSASSIN" mythological creatures, then that is of course his
right to do so.
As for myself, I prefer to deal with the simple facts of the
assassination, which do not include any multiple assassins, and they
do not include some mythological SHOT THAT MISSED, which the Warren
Commission made up and convinced Mr. Von Pein as to the validity of.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
__________________________________________________
David Von Pein says:
TOM UTTERED:
"The "other" headshot which no one has bothered to inform you of."
DVP:
But, naturally, Mr. Purvis knows all about that "second" head shot.
Stick with Tom Purvis everybody! He knows WAY, WAY more than the WC,
HSCA, et al!
After all....he's Tom Purvis!
__________________________________________________
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
Had Mr. Von Pein actually done all of his research/homework, then he
would have recognized that the US Secret Service, during December 2/3/
& 4th, 1963, with a first generation copy of the Zapruder film in
their possession, completed an assassination re-enactment and survey
of Dealy Plaza/Elm St.
During this work, the US Secret Service accurately determined the
position of JFK at the point of impact of each of the three shots
fired in the assassination.
The third/last/final shot impact point being located approximately 30-
feet farther down Elm St. than the point of impact for the Z313
headshot impact.
Therefore, not unlike many of the CT/multiple assassin persuasion, Mr.
Von Pein's lack of research into the subject matter has resulted in
his having to accept the Warren Commission's subterfuge that of the
three shots fired, one of the shots completely missed.
When in fact, multiple witness testimony has clearly demonstrated that
JFK was struck by and reacted to the first shot fired.
Multiple witness testimony has clearly demonstrated that the Z313 head
shot impact was in fact the second shot fired.
And, multiple witness testimony has clearly demonstrated the location
of the Presidential Limo at the time of the third/last/final shot, to
include having observed the impact of this shot to the head of JFK as
well.
Of course, Mr. Von Pein does not wish to become even more confused
with the facts which he quite obviously never bothered to research.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
-----------------
David Von Pein says:
And Mr. Purvis, btw, is also the same person who decided it was wise
to completely misrepresent Dr. Humes' testimony with respect to JFK's
clothing holes.
To get a good idea as to the tactics used by a typical CTer (like Mr.
Purvis), go to the link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bac6812ff9d8f836
-----------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
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.
-----------------
Back many years ago when I (and others) always skipped school at the
beginning of any hunting season, we always carried back to school a
"note from Mom" which claimed that we were sick.
To my knowledge, the School Principal never actually believed any of
these notes!
-----------------
Had Mr. Von Pein done his homework, then he would have found:
1. As admitted into evidence, all testimony regarding the evaluation
of holes in the coat of JFK, constitute "Hearsay" evidence and
testimony.
2. The "Memorandum" which reportedly states that the upper hole, which
is located just at the edge of the coat collar, and is reportedly were
a "control" sample was taken, has now disappeared from the National
Archives.
3. The only Agent from the FBI Laboratory to physically examine the
clothing of JFK, was shipped out of town to Georgia to evaluate
"Oswald was hear" written in chalk on the inside of an abandoned
railroad boxcar, and thus this individual was made "not available" to
testify before the WC.
4. That, for each and every test run by the FBI Laboratory, a Lab Test
Report is completed, and had the WC/and/or the FBI wanted to
completely convince us that the upper hole was where a control sample
was taken from the coat, then all that they had to do was submit into
evidence the actual Laboratory Test Report which demonstrated this
fact.
(They did not, by the way)
5. Of ALL of those FBI Agents assigned to the FBI Laboratory, only one
of these individuals has stated that he physically examined the
clothing of JFK.
This happens to be the individual who was shipped out to Georgia to
evaluate "Oswald was Here" written in chalk, and was thereafter tasked
with determination of exactlly who made the chalk. (as opposed to
being available to testify before the WC).
6. Furthermore, anyone who researches the subject matter would have
found that a "Control" sample, if taken, is always taken directly
adjacent to the area being tested (not several inches higher on the
coat where such items as hair cream and/or makeup can intefere with
the test (as personally relaid to me by the only FBI Agent to
physically examine the clothing of jFK.)
And, any true "Control Sample" location would have been clearly marked
with a circle of chalk around the area of the control sample removal,
as well as additional photographs haven been taken after removal of
this portion of fabric.
So!
In event that Mr. Von Pein wishes to argue facts with "Tom", then he
had best present to us, all of those FBI Agents (Frazier; Gallagher;
Heilman; Heiberger: etc., to whom he has spoken in determination of
these facts. As, "Tom" long ago spoke with as well as corresponded
with all of these persons.
Then, Mr. Von Pein can thereafter present to us all of the contact and
communications which he has had with the autopsy surgeons, as "Tom"
has at one time or another spoken to Dr. Humes; Dr. Finck; as well as
multiple/multitudes of conversations and communications with Dr.
Boswell.
"Doubting Thomas" is here to inform you that the WC is an intentional
misrepresentation of the simple facts of the assassination of JFK.
And, anyone who attempts to misrepresent the facts, whether in favor
of a lone assassin, or in favor of multiple assassins and body
kidnappers/wound alteration beings, is guilty of a complete lack of
research or an intentional diversion away from the simple facts of the
assassination.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
Commander HUMES- Situated above it just below the collar is an
additional defect
-----------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound,
right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the
right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
----------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm
-"and here to put it in the record is the posterior hairline or margin
of the hair of the late President and there near the midline in just a
centimeter or two above the hairline is an area that you refer to as
the in-shoot wound. That, in other words, was a verbalization of the
description of the location of the small droplet near the bottom of
the head. You replied, Dr. Humes, "Yes sir."
----------------
The logic of the "common man" should indicate to most that a direct
correlation exists between a puncture hole through the coat of JFK,
which is located at the edge of the coat collar, and which penetration
goes through the outer fabric of the coat as well as the inner liner
of the coat on an oblique angle, and the bullet entrance into the rear
of the head of JFK located just up from the edge of the hairline, have
more in common then merely "coincidence".
But of course, one has to actually conduct research to find out
exactly what any such correlation may be.
And, such research requires considerably more effort than reading up
on (& believing) the JFK assassination as presented in Posner's book;
the WC's "SHOT THAT MISSED"; and whatever VB repeats on the subject
matter as being fact.
David Von Pein says:
TOM PURVIS BLUBBERED:
>>> "Of course, Mr. Von Pein does not wish to become even more confused with the facts which he quite obviously never bothered to research."
David Von Pein says:
TOM PURVIS BLUBBERED:
"Of course, Mr. Von Pein does not wish to become even more confused
with the facts which he quite obviously never bothered to research."
DVP SAYS:
LOL time.
Why should I "research" wholly-subjective and skewed-beyond-all-
tolerance Kook Facts? Where is that going to lead me (except on a long
and agonizing trip down Kook Boulevard with the likes of "Tom" and
Why?
It's just.....idiotic.
it was ONE. Without a shred of a doubt. Even avid conspiracist Dr.
Cyril Wecht agrees with his FPP colleagues on that fact.
Let's listen to Dr. James Humes in 1967 (via a CBS-TV special):
DAN RATHER - "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES - "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."
RATHER - "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES - "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER - "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES - "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER - "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES - "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly.
The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and
as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or
bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific
evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward
through the President's skull."
RATHER - "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES - "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER - "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES - "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
~~~~~
I guess Dr. Humes was merely telling more blatant lies and continuing
the "intentional misrepresentation of the simple facts of the
assassination of JFK" when he uttered the above words to a U.S.
audience of millions in June of 1967, right Tom?
Thomas H. Purvis says:
__________________________________________________
"THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL REASON UNDER THE MOON FOR
THE WARREN COMMISSION OR THE FBI (ETC.) TO WANT TO ENGAGE IN THE KIND
OF "INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTION" THAT THOMAS H. PURVIS SAYS DID OCCUR
WITH RESPECT TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION IN 1963."
__________________________________________________
Failure to understand and/or recognize the potential reasons, does not
mean that there were no reasons.
It merely means that one fails to recognize or understand the reasons.
__________________________________________________
"Therefore, why in the world would the WC, FBI (et al) have possessed
any desire to put forth some kind of cockeyed ALTERNATE and FALSE
shooting scenario that would STILL LEAD BACK TO THE VERY SAME LONE-
ASSASSIN-NAMED-OSWALD CONCLUSION THAT TOM THINKS IS THE ACTUAL TRUTH?
It's just.....idiotic.
__________________________________________________
Failure to understand and/or recognize the potential reasons, does not
mean that there were no reasons.
It merely means that one fails to recognize or understand the reasons.
-----------------
Lastly!
Dr. Humes insisted (quite correctly I might add) that the bullet
entrance through the skull which he (as well as Finck & Boswell)
observed, was slightly right of and slightly above the EOP of the
skull.
The HSCA insisted (quite correctly I might add) that the bullet
entrance through the skull which they observed in the anterior/
posterior X-ray, was some 10 centimeters (approximately 4-inches)
above/higher than that location as designated by the autopsy surgeons,
and it was in fact in the upper rear/cowlick area of the skull.
In addition, the HSCA panel found that the measurements of the
entrance wound which they observed, in fact differed from those
measurements which the autopsy surgeons physically measured.
Now!
As a generally accepted fact, bullet entrance wounds through the skull
do not normally move around by some four inches in location, and they
do not normally change their physical dimensions.
In additon,Carcano type bullet entrance wounds which strike in the
edge of the hairline, when fired on a downward angle with the body
sitting erect, have never in recorded history known to have exited out
the top of the skull.
And, if Mr. Von Pein would thoroughly research his supposedly
understanding of the facts, he would thus find that the upper/cowlick
entry wound across the top portion of JFK's head/skull is in fact a
result of the shot at Z313, which in fact struck at this high
location.
Furthermore, that bullet which penetrated through the coat collar and
thereafter struck JFK at the edge of the hairline of the neck, and
thereafter "tunneled" through the soft flesh of the neck to strike JFK
in the EOP region of the skull, did so after JFK was leaning well
forward with his head down.
Now!
The mere fact that Mr. Von Pein does not understand the factual
evidence is merely do to his complete lack of research into the facts
of this evidence.
Had he bothered to even read the statements of Nellie Connally, she
too told the world of exactly when the third/last/final shot occurred,
as well as the fact that the impact of this shot, just as James
Altgens also described, blew brain matter all over the inside of the
car.
And, the impact of this shot occurred long after JBC was fully down in
the seats with his head in Nellie Connally's lap.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
Anyone who desires to search into this fact will find that JBC was
still sitting erect at the time of the Z313 impact to JFK's head, as
well as for a considerable length of time afterwards.
Furthermore, had Mr. Von "Pain" done his homework, he would have also
found that in addition the the US Secret Service, that the FBI was
also fully aware of the impact point of each of the three shots fired,
and even in their February 7, 1964 survey work and assassination re-
enactment, they left the third/last/final impact point to JFK in place
on their survey plat.
That point being the impact location at approximately stationing 4+95,
being that location down directly in front of James Altgens position,
as well as being some 30 feet past the point of impact for the Z313
headshot which was located at survey stationing 4+65.3.
And, Mr. Von "Pain", the US Secret Service as well as the FBI, to
include the WC, all initially had surveyed in and plotted onto their
survey plats the impact location for the first shot fired.
Which by they way, they also knew did not MISS!
David Von Pein says:
TOM GUSHED THE FOLLOWING IDIOCY (TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED BY ANYONE IN
DVP CAN ONLY:
LOL!
Crazy, man. Crazy.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
"a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the
Boss's head".
-----------------
In event Mr. Von "Pain" would bother to actually conduct research and
read the multitudes of witness testimonies, then he would find
multitudes of witnesses who clearly have stated and informed that the
headshot at Z313 was the second shot fired in the assassination
shooting sequence.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
" BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could
notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as
Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction."
"BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were
relatively close together."
-----------------
Now! This could go on for a considerable length of time, were one to
bother quoting all of those eyewitness's who clearly stated that they
observed the SECOND SHOT strike JFK.
Too bad that Mr. Von "Pain" has a reading comprehension problem/and/or
research problem, as it is relatively simple to find this evidence.
Of course if one is so naive that they believe "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"
as presented by the WC/Posner/etc: then one most likely would not know
what to look for, were they to read the accurate witness statements
which have always told us that the headshot at Z313 was in fact the
second shot fired.
*It is further noted that SS Agent Glen Bennett also reported having
observed he first shot strike JFK in the back, a written record which
was made on the return flight to Washington, DC, and which record was
written prior to any other knowledge that JFK was in fact hit in the
upper back.
So, Mr. Von "Pain's" first shot that missed, also did not miss as it's
impact of striking JFK is documented in Bennett's written statement.
I would add further that the SS as well as the FBI all knew the exact
point at which JFK had been struck by the first shot fired, as they
both had this point surveyed in and placed onto their Survey Plats
during the SS Survey work and assassination re-enactment of December
2, 3,& 4th of 1963, as well as the FBI Survey Plat and re-enactment
work of February 7, 1964.
Each of which clearly deleniates the impact of three shots fired, and
each of which clearly deleniates the impact point for the third shot
as being some 30 feet past the Z313 impact point, and which point was
in front of James Altgens
position.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
Mr. HUDSON- I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place
right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the
motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying
to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking
right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
Mr. HUDSON - Right along there is about where President Kennedy's car
was when he was hit - at the time I was looking right at him when the
shot struck him, when the bullet struck him.
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
right along in there.
-----------------
And I just love the way Tom relies much more heavily on eyewitness
accounts (like those of James Altgens and Emmett Hudson) with respect
to the wounds on JFK, rather than place more heavy reliance on the
MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE provided by the autopsy doctors and the autopsy
report which was produced by those doctors. (Not to mention the
autopsy photos and X-rays.)
-----------------
Now!
Were it that Mr. Von "Pain" some highly respected expert on the
assassination of JFK, then he would first off know that when the
autopsy ended, the opinion was that JFK had been struck by two
bullets.
One of which lodged in his back without having exited the body, and
one which struck him in the edge of the hairline of the head, to
ultimately strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP.
After the autopsy was ended and all had gone home with this concept,
the small anterior throat wound
was reported to Dr. Humes by Dr's of Parkland Hospital.
Thereafter, even though certain that the shot into JFK's back HAD NOT
exited, Dr. Humes got with Dr. Finck as well as Dr. Boswell and they
discussed the possibility that they had been mistaken about the "non-
exiting" bullet, and they thereafter changed the autopsy report to
indicate that the shot into JFK's back had most likely exited in the
anterior neck.
Now!
As most who have had to take written test are aware, exactly how sure
of one's answer are they if they can readily and easily be convinced
that they were incorrect, to the extent that they will change from
what was in fact the correct answer (the bullet only lodging into the
back of JFK) to an incorrect answer that the bullet penetrated the
neck of JFK and exited in the anterior throat at approximately the
third tracheal ring.
Rest assured, having discussed such items with Dr. Boswell on many
occassion, irrelevant as to how much I may or may now know on the
subject of the autopsy of JFK, I will always know more than does Mr.
Von "Pain" , who apparantly relegates his research to reading "CASE
CLOSED"; the WARREN COMMISSION, and now VB's "rehash" of the same
misrepresented evidence.
Thomas H. Purvis says:
In Continuation:
-----------------
And I just love the way Tom relies much more heavily on eyewitness
accounts (like those of James Altgens and Emmett Hudson) with respect
to the wounds on JFK, rather than place more heavy reliance on the
MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE provided by the autopsy doctors and the autopsy
report which was produced by those doctors. (Not to mention the
autopsy photos and X-rays.)
-----------------
Mr. Von "Pain", with his quite obvious lack of reading comprehension
is under some misguided impression that referencing eye witness
testimonies which clearly state of having observed the impact to the
head of JFK of two separate shots, constitutes some form of relying on
witnesses to describe the anatomical injuries sustained by JFK.
This no doubt is why Mr. Von "Pain" can not accomplish research for
himself, and thus must rely on others to inform him of what he
apparantly readily accepts as the facts.
So it goes with those who, for whatever reason, lack the ability/
capability for separate and independent thought process.
However! In event that I wanted someone to discuss the assassination
of JFK who merely "Parroted" what Posner/the WC/VB stated, then I
would go to the local pet store, purchase a parrot, and thereafter
read "CASE CLOSED"/The Warren Report/and/or VB's book to them.
Then, merely sit back and observe while the "Parrot", repeats back the
same, often incorrect information.
Personally, I would expect more from the human species!
Especially someone who goes around acting as if they were some sort of
researcher with experience in research methodology who had at least
taken the time or made the attempt to gain "first source" information.
As example:
Did Mr. Von "Pain"; VB; the WC; and/or any other LN supporter happen
to inform that LHO was an absolutely excellent shot at targets of 500
meters or less when firing from a fixed/stable firing platform?
Nope!
Ole "know nothing" Tom is the one who informed of this little known
fact.
Now, one can search this out for themselves quite easily by a review
of LHO's rangefire records as demonstrated and presented in the WC.
Yet! This is why other experienced USMC Experts truthfully testified
to the lack of difficulty for LHO to have achieved the shots of less
than 100 yards distance in Dealy Plaza.
So, exactly why would the WC not tell us all this little known fact
(assuming that one accepets it as fact, and if they conduct the
appropriate research, they will find that it is fact)?
Try telling the american public that LHO was an absolutely excellent,
to the extent of being in the upper EXPERT range of firing, at such
short ranges, and then try to sell them on "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" in
which one is attempting to convince that this absolutely EXCELLENT
shooter could not even hit the Presidential Limo with one of the three
shots fired.
We, the american people, may at times be somewhat gullible, but we are
certainly not all as dumb as those who have fallen for and believed
"THE SHOT THAT MISSED" scenario as presented by the WC, and I might
add, is highly expoused by Mr. Von "Pain".
So, when all is finally said and done, there will be those who clearly
will possess the imprint of "Dumb A**" imprinted across their
forehead.
And specifically, all those who fell for "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" will
no doubt get it stenciled in large block lettering.
Anthony Marsh
The Marine Corps said Oswald was a poor shot. Are you calling them liars?
> 2. The 91/38 6.5mm Carcano was an excellent weapon.
>
Oswald's rifle was a piece of junk.
> 3. Three shots were fired in the course of the assassination.
>
At least three, so what?
> 4. All shots fired, came from the location at the sixth floor window
> of the TSDB.
>
No.
Brokedad
wrote:
> Was Humes examining the actual suit jacket of JFK during this testimony?
>
> Humes testimony is not super clear but I believe he says (or meant) that
> the FBI memo attached to the jacket indicates that a sample was cut from
> the bullet hole and also from 'under the collar' above that hole for
> control purposes.
>
> It was his interpretation (based on that memo) of his examination of the
> suit jacket exhibit, that the upper defect seen is where the control
> sample was taken by the FBI.
>
> Also, it can't be a bullet hole when he says it didn't go thru the garment
> like the other (lower) defect.
>
> David, there are examples of both CTs and LNs of misrepresenting facts for
> their own agendas or theories.
>
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11023&view=find...
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. The lower hole was X-rayed and found to contain metallic residue
embedded in the fabric around the perimeter of the puncture/hole.
2. Portions of the fabric containing the metallic residue were cut and
removed from the fabric, and this/these samples were destroyed during
"flame" analysis .
3. Results of the flame analysis demonstrated the metallic residue to be
copper.
4. A separate Lab Test Report is/and was completed for each step in the
process. Therefore, a Lab Test Report for the X-ray as well as a Lab Test
Report for the flame analysis testing was completed.
5. There was NO COMPARISON TESTING whatsoever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since copper is not a normal element of clothing manufacture, and the
copper was only found around the perimeter of the hole in the coat, there
was no need to run any comparison testing"
"Had comparison testing been done, the sample would have been taken
directly adjacent to the existing hole, and the sample location would have
been marked/circled in chalk, as well as having photographs taken after
removal and marking of the sample location"
"No comparison sample would have been taken up near the coat collar as
anything such as hair cream or makeup could have contaminated the sample
and affected the results"
"I conducted no comparison sampling and no sample was taken from anywhere
on the coat, let alone up near the coat collar. In fact, I was not even
aware that another hole existed there."
"Laboratory Test Reports are completed for each and every test conducted.
You can get those and they will verify exactly what tests were conducted"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Agent Henry Heiberger to Tom Purvis, many years ago during our
conversations relative to the FBI Laboratory examination of the clothing
of JFK.
Agent Heiberger is the ONLY FBI Agent to have conducted any physical/
laboratory testing on the clothing worn by JFK at the time of the
assassination.
Anthony Marsh
> I trust DVP is having a bit of a joke on all those on this newsgroup.
> Tom Purvis is pretty much the ONLY single-assassin theorist on the
> Education Forum, and yet DVP uses Purvis to put down CTs!
> Priceless!!! For the record, Tom and John Canal are similar in that
> they believe Oswald acted alone, but that there was a subsequent cover-
> up of various aspects of the evidence. But does DVP confront Canal?
> No. He attacks Purvis, and uses Purvis' purported zaniness to put
> down members of a Forum from which he was booted, not because he was a
> single-assassin theorist, but because he refused to reveal his real
> identity.
>
> For the record, Purvis is right on a number of points. If you go to
> chapter 2b at patspeer.com you'll see that both the Secret Service and
> the FBI, whether deliberately or by mistake, concluded in December 63
> that the head shot at 313 was the second shot. This is not CT
> speculation. This is a fact. Purvis believes they were right, and
> that the WC swirled everything around to make the evidence--which
> they'd failed to properly understand--fit the single-bullet theory.
>
Wrong. Both the FBI and the SS believed that Kennedy was hit by the
first shot, Connally by the second shot and Kennedy by the third shot.
That was the official government position.
David Von Pein
>>> "I trust DVP is having a bit of a joke on all those on this newsgroup.
Tom Purvis is pretty much the ONLY single-assassin theorist on the
Education Forum, and yet DVP uses Purvis to put down CTs!" <<<
Why should reasonable "LNers" allow someone like Mr. Purvis to go
unscathed and spout his nonsensical theories, even if he is in my same
"camp" re. the "LHO/3 SHOTS" scenario?
In my opinion, Mr. Purvis is skewing the facts and truth about the
assassination almost as much as some of the CTers of the world (although
not quite as much, I'll grant you that, especially around these parts).
I have come to learn that Mr. Purvis believes in some very crazy nonsense
re. the assassination of John Kennedy...and he seems to actually think
that the WC would want to prop up some kind of alternate "OSWALD DID IT
ALL" theory to mask the "REAL OSWALD DID IT ALL TRUTH".
I asked him WHY the Warren Commission would even want to begin to consider
going through with a fraud like that, and the response I got (twice) from
Tom P. was:
"Failure to understand and/or recognize the potential reasons, does not
mean that there were no reasons. It merely means that one fails to
recognize or understand the reasons."
In other words--Mr. Purvis is probably shrugging his own shoulders when it
comes to that very basic and common-sense question I asked about the WC's
internal motive(s) for wanting to conclude the following in their Final
Report: "LHO DID IT WITH ONE HEAD SHOT AND ONE MISSED SHOT" vs. "LHO DID
IT WITH TWO HEAD SHOTS".
>>> "But does DVP confront Canal?" <<<
In a word -- Yes.
Perhaps you missed these exchanges (below), when I "confronted" Mr. Canal
re. what I believe to be his mostly-inaccurate beliefs re. JFK's head
wounds:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9ace52779b8f808
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/baf36167d8a1c948
>>> "DVP believes that anyone proposing a conspiracy of any type--whether
to kill JFK or cover up the evidence--is a conspiracy theorist." <<<
Yes. Correct. Duh. So? That's the actual DEFINITION of a "conspiracy
theorist".
>>> "In such case, VB {Vince Bugliosi} is a conspiracy theorist. By
holding with the cowlick entry, he is proposing that Humes, Boswell, and
Finck, after looking at the body during the autopsy, and after inspecting
the autopsy photos TWICE, LIED about the location of the entry wound, and
LIED about seeing this wound in the photos. To assert that these doctors
were merely mistaken all three times is preposterous beyond belief." <<<
The autopsy doctors didn't lie. But Mr. Purvis almost certainly must think
that ALL THREE of them are/were rotten liars, with not a one of them
telling what they knew about a SECOND entry wound in the back of JFK's
head. Tom couldn't put forth his wholly-unsupportable "2 Head Shots From
The Rear" theory WITHOUT thinking such a vile thing about H,F,&B.
Plus, there's the fact that Dr. Humes told the HSCA.......
Mr. CORNWELL -- Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at
least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines
that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more
well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still
the same; as to where the point of entry is?
Dr. HUMES -- Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I go
back further to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the
absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical
observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those
measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to
discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in
the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external
occipital protuberance. .... And it is obvious to me as I sit here now
with this....photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed, or the
upper object, is clearly in the location of where we said approximately
where it was, above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I
believe that is the wound of entry."
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>>> "He {DVP} attacks Purvis, and uses Purvis' purported zaniness to put
down members of a Forum from which he was booted, not because he was a
single-assassin theorist, but because he refused to reveal his real
identity." <<<
I wonder why you're telling this outright falsehood, Pat. I never
"refused" to reveal my "real identity" to Mr. Simkin. What an odd thing to
say.
He claims he booted me (after 4 days) due to a regulation re. mandatory
photos that were required for a member's "profile" there. I told him
truthfully the reasons I could not post such a photograph and even
mentioned to him that several other members were not obeying that rule
either, but they were not ejected from the forum (and still have not been,
to my knowledge to date).
In short, it's my true belief that the various "All CT" Forums just don't
want to have their world of conspiracies and cover-ups disturbed by a
silly lil' ol' LNer. Plain and simple.*
* = And Mr. Purvis is certainly not an "LNer" in my book. He believes the
autopsy doctors lied through their teeth over and over again (and for no
good reason at all); and he believes in a "conspiracy" revolving around
the cover-up he thinks was engaged in by the WC. That's not your
traditional, or reasonable, "LNer" in my view. And last time I checked,
Mr. Canal doesn't believe that JFK was shot TWICE in the head either. So
he's in a different category from Mr. Purvis.
pjsp...@aol.com
Anthony, you didn't go to chapter 2b at patspeer.com, did you? In
that chapter I show how both the Secret Service and FBI at one time
considered the shot at the location of Z-313 the second shot. Now
either they were complete incompetents or were at one time considering
that Z-313 was the second shot. In chapter 2 I show how the logical
deduction was that the head shot was the second shot. Even so, the
evidence suggests that they were too incompetent to figure out what
they should have concluded, and just stunk up the place with their
incompetence.
pjsp...@aol.com
David, I believe Purvis was friends with Boswell and considers him a
great guy. So your contention that his theory makes the doctors out
to be liars is not quite accurate. If my memory is correct, Tom
believes the first bullet hit JFK's back and fell out, (with a small
piece going through and causing the neck wound), which is consistent
with Boswell's observations. He believes the second bullet hit high
on Kennedy's head at 313. He believes the third shot hit low on
Kennedy's head and continued on to hit Connally. I don't agree with
his theory but it is not in direct opposition to the autopsy report.
(One can't consider the proposed course of the magic bullet through
Kennedy's body an observation because the doctors never inspected the
pathway, and developed the theory that the back bullet exited the neck
on pure supposition, without even the body in front of them.)
David Von Pein
Yes, it most certainly is in direct opposition to the autopsy report,
which states (and I quote):
"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased died
as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity
projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were
fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased.
The observations and available information do not permit a satisfactory
estimate as to the sequence of the two wounds."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
===============
Where in the above verbiage is there ANY mention of a THIRD bullet
entering JFK's body? Where?
Did the autopsists just FORGET to put info about this third wound in the
Report? Or maybe they just didn't see the second head entry wound?
And the photo just happened not to show any second such entry wound
either? Heck, Tony Marsh doesn't think this photo shows ANY entry wound on
JFK's head at all, let alone two....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
But thank the Maker we've got Thomas H. Purvis (and ONLY Thomas) to set
the rest of the world--and the autopsy doctors--straight on exactly what
"really" happened on 11/22/63.
Anthony Marsh
That is physically impossible with the jacketed ammunition.
> with Boswell's observations. He believes the second bullet hit high
No, you are thinking of Humes and Humes was only guessing, not observing.
Anthony Marsh
What, for 5 seconds and then laughed it off?
Looking at all the possible scenarios does not mean that's what they
believed.
> either they were complete incompetents or were at one time considering
> that Z-313 was the second shot. In chapter 2 I show how the logical
> deduction was that the head shot was the second shot. Even so, the
That's YOUR theory.
pjsp...@aol.com
Wrong. You still haven't looked. The SS re-enactment of 12-5 and the FBI
re-enactment performed by their exhibits section both placed the second
shot in the area of 313. The exhibits section's report was discussed with
Hoover, and met his approval. They'd studied the Nix and Zapruder films
before arriving at this conclusion. There are two explanations. They were
either grossly incompetent or believed the head shot was the second shot.
Which is it?
pjsp...@aol.com
David, you are correct in that Purvis believed there was a second entrance
in the cowlick, and that this was not reported in the autopsy report.
You are on muddy ground, however, in using this against him, as both you
and your hero Bugliosi insist that this entrance wound exists, in
opposition to the autopsy report and subsequent statements of the doctors.
If this is really your beef with Purvis, I believe you're calling the
kettle black.
When one thinks about it, Purvis' impression is more in line with the
report than VB's impression. Purvis believes the doctors missed an
entrance wound. VB insists that, not only did they miss this wound, they
invented another one 4 inches away, and then swore to seeing this wound in
the photos on two separate occasions. Hmmm... Now who's calling the
doctors liars?
Gerry Simone (O)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190519383....@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
With the yellow curb mark at which Moorman & Hill stood being located
to the rear of the Limo during the Z313 headshot, and the yellow curb
mark just past Altgens position being located forward of the front of
the limo at the time of the third/last/final shot in front of Altgens,
they would have had to have been totally incompetent to have confused
the locations.
And, since they (the SS & FBI) had more than sufficient witnesses who
informed them that the Z313 headshot was the second shot, as well as
sufficient witnesses to inform them of the location of the impact of
the third/last/final shot, to include having observed it strike the
head of JFK, then this quite obviously requires a complete genius to
resolve the location of the shots as well as exactly how many times
that JFK was struck in the head.
David Von Pein
Purvis' impression is not in line with either the official autopsy
report or with VB's position on the matter. No way. No how. And the
main reason is that we KNOW (via the AR and the testimony of all 3
autopsy physicians for decades on end) that there was ONLY ONE ENTRY
WOUND IN JFK'S HEAD.
And the Official Autopsy Report, while it could be more exacting and
specific as to the precise location of the entry wound (I can't deny
that), does not differ greatly from the HSCA version of the entry hole
in the head IMO....
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to
the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." -- Via JFK's November 1963
Autopsy Report
....With the MAIN point (to stress again this critical fact) being:
ALL official versions of the President's head wounds -- from the
autopsy report, to the autopsy doctors, to the WC, to the Clark Panel,
and to the HSCA/FPP -- verify the fact that there was only ONE single
bullet wound of entrance on the back side of President Kennedy's head
on 11/22/63.
And this "One Wound Of Entry" fact was hammered home once again in
June of 1967, when Dr. James Humes (in his first public interview
since his 1964 WC testimony) said this to an audience of millions on
CBS-TV:
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
Anthony Marsh
You are trying to claim that Bugliosi believes there were two entrance
wounds on the back of the head? That would make him a conspiracy theorist.
Anthony Marsh
No, the FBI and SS did not put the second shot at Z-313. That was the
headshot. They said the second shot hit Connally.
>
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
I'm surprised that a well read individual like you didn't know this.
Unless you DID know it but, decided to Dodge it.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190800151.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
groov...@gmail.com
the HSCA report are not much different? A 4 inch difference for a head
wound location is HUGE. The doctors all agreed that the entrance was by
the EOP, not 4 inches above it. They have stood by this from day one.
Humes was blackmailed into momentarily changing his story, but beyond that
they've stood together on this.
Your citing Humes' statements to CBS are especially ironic. It has been
proven that Humes LIED in this interview when he said his review of the
autopsy photos confirmed that the wounds were exactly as depicted in the
Rydberg drawings. The photos show the back wound to be two inches lower,
at least. Humes also said, in Nov 66 and Jan 67, that the low head wound
by the EOP is visible in the autopsy photos. But you pretend he never said
that, don't you?
I'm waiting for your explanation of the 66 and 67 inventories. It ought
to be a doozy. Probably something like "Humes knew the photos showed an
entrance in a different location than the Rydberg drawings, but forgot to
say anything about it." Of course, this fails to explain why Humes told
the HSCA that the red spot was dried blood, and why he assured them that
when he reflected the scalp to that area there was no hole in skull.
Give it your best shot.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5ed4d68b6ec55f2c
>>> "I'm waiting for your explanation of the '66 and '67 inventories. It
ought to be a doozy. .... Give it your best shot." <<<
Okay. Here goes:
THERE WAS ONLY *ONE* (1) BULLET HOLE OF ENTRY IN JFK'S HEAD. JUST ONE (1).
REGARDLESS OF *WHERE* TO THE SQUARE INCH ON KENNEDY'S CRANIUM THIS ENTRY
WOUND RESIDED.
How's that?
Did I meet your "doozy" expectations? Or should I "doozy" it up a little
more for you next time?
BTW, what's YOUR CT-slanted explanation as to why NOBODY in Officialdom
claims to have seen TWO separate bullet holes of entry on the back of John
Kennedy's cranium? From the autopsists, to the WC, to the Clark Panel, and
to the HSCA/FPP.
Nobody has ever, ever said this: 'Gee, there's two wounds of entry here.'
All liars? From the autopsists, to the WC, to the Clark Panel, and right
on down to ALL NINE pathologists for the HSCA/FPP (including Dr. Wecht
even).
IOW -- WHERE DOES THE "ROVING HEAD WOUND" ARGUMENT REALLY ULTIMATELY TAKE
CTers? Anywhere? Except back to ONE (1) entry wound on the back of
Kennedy's head?
Anthony Marsh
> Holy smokes, David! Are you really pretending that the autopsy report and
> the HSCA report are not much different? A 4 inch difference for a head
> wound location is HUGE. The doctors all agreed that the entrance was by
> the EOP, not 4 inches above it. They have stood by this from day one.
> Humes was blackmailed into momentarily changing his story, but beyond that
> they've stood together on this.
>
> Your citing Humes' statements to CBS are especially ironic. It has been
> proven that Humes LIED in this interview when he said his review of the
> autopsy photos confirmed that the wounds were exactly as depicted in the
> Rydberg drawings. The photos show the back wound to be two inches lower,
> at least. Humes also said, in Nov 66 and Jan 67, that the low head wound
> by the EOP is visible in the autopsy photos. But you pretend he never said
> that, don't you?
>
> I'm waiting for your explanation of the 66 and 67 inventories. It ought
> to be a doozy. Probably something like "Humes knew the photos showed an
> entrance in a different location than the Rydberg drawings, but forgot to
> say anything about it." Of course, this fails to explain why Humes told
> the HSCA that the red spot was dried blood, and why he assured them that
> when he reflected the scalp to that area there was no hole in skull.
> Give it your best shot.
>
I even speculate that the panel showed the Dox drawing to Humes instead
of the original autopsy photo.
David Von Pein
of the opinion that you know something relative to the factual evidence in
the assassination of JFK, might I recommend that you merely ask. (It just
may prevent you from looking totally stupid--again!) As opposed to running
over here on some forum which I seldom visit, and attempting to throw
rocks, when in fact you have none and are merely a "parrot" of information
and research of others." <<<
<belly-laugh>
Yeah....I'd be an utter fool to even BEGIN to believe such crazy, off-
the-wall liars and/or LN shills like all of the following individuals
(from the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee On Assassinations,
the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the Bethesda autopsy
doctors):
1.) Earl Warren
2.) Allen W. Dulles
3.) John J. McCloy
4.) John S. Cooper
5.) Hale Boggs
6.) Gerald Ford
7.) J. Lee Rankin
8.) Norman Redlich
9.) Joseph A. Ball
10.) Arlen Specter
11.) David W. Belin
12.) W. David Slawson
13.) Howard P. Willens
14.) Mel A. Eisenberg
15.) Louis Stokes
16.) Richardson Preyer
17.) Charles Thone
18.) Christopher J. Dodd
19.) Yvonne Brathwaite Burke
20.) Harold S. Sawyer
21.) G. Robert Blakey
22.) Dr. James J. Humes
23.) Dr. J. Thornton Boswell
24.) Dr. Pierre A. Finck
25.) Dr. Russell H. Morgan
26.) Dr. Russell S. Fisher
27.) Dr. Alan R. Moritz
28.) Dr. William H. Carnes
29.) Dr. Michael M. Baden
30.) Dr. Werner V. Spitz
31.) Dr. John I. Coe
32.) Dr. Joseph Davis
33.) Dr. George S. Loquvam
34.) Dr. Earl Rose
35.) Dr. Charles S. Petty
36.) Dr. James T. Weston
37.) Dr. Richard Lindenberg
38.) Dr. Fred J. Hodges
39.) Alfred G. Olivier
40.) Robert R. McMeekin
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not placing Richard Russell in the above-mentioned group of people
that a certain theorist thinks are ALL LIARS and/or DIDN'T KNOW ONE ENTRY
WOUND FROM TWO ENTRY WOUNDS and/or DON'T KNOW THEIR ANAL CRACKS FROM A
MANNLICHER-CARCANO.
I didn't put Senator Russell on my list above because Russell was a
goofball. And Vince Bugliosi thinks so too.
I don't mean to suggest that Senator Russell was engaging in any kind of a
cover-up or that he was a part of the "Grand Conspiracy" that many CTers
believe was swirling around Dallas and Washington in 1963.
To the contrary actually--because if Goofball Russell had been involved in
some kind of after-the-assassination "cover-up", then I kinda doubt we
would have Russell ON TAPE telling President Johnson that the
Single-Bullet Theory was (in effect) a piece-of-shit theory in Russell's
eyes.
Anyway, here's what Mr. Bugliosi had to say when the subject matter turned
to Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia in the "Endnotes" section of VB's
2007 book "Reclaiming History"......
"What Russell essentially said {in a 1970 interview} is that there
were too many things he had questions about, and because of these
unanswered questions, instead of concluding he didn't know what happened,
he tended to believe there was a conspiracy.
"Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official, he
would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did not. .... His
attendance at the hearings where 94 witnesses testified before the
Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only attending the
testimony of 6 witnesses. And if Russell had a little more common sense,
that would have also helped.
"Russell is the same person who on October 22, 1962, right in the
middle of the Cuban missile crisis...actually urged war rather than a
peaceful resolution to the crisis. ....
"Can you imagine that? To Russell, possession of nuclear weapons
wasn't a deterrent to war but a golden opportunity to blow up the planet.
I must confess: when a mental giant like Russell says he believes there
may have been a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, I listen." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 297-298 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes
(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9af777b0e813fd7
====================
So, what we have here is a situation where Mr. Purvis is forced to claim
that every single one of the 40 persons on my list above was dead-wrong
when it came to their conclusions re. JFK's wounds. Not ONE of those
listed individuals said anything about TWO wounds of entrance on the back
of President Kennedy's head.
So, instead of accepting the conclusions of multiple official Government
panels/investigations, I guess we members of the "LN Sheep Society" should
switch our allegiance and start believing Mr. Thomas H. Purvis and his "2
Head Shots From Behind" theory.
Let me think about that for just a moment longer......
Should I believe the above-referenced 40 people from multiple
investigations? Or should I place my faith in Mr. Purvis' loony "2 Head
Shots" basket?
Gee.....that's a real toughie, huh?
<obligatory smirk goes HERE>
BTW, Mr. Purvis -- Have you been able to find that FIRST person on the
face of the planet who agrees with you regarding your "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM
THE REAR" concoction yet? Just wondering.
I'll close this post with the keen and astute words of respected newsman
Eric Sevareid, who said the following in 1967......
"...And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its
painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point
to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a
consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably
plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged.
There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to
cover up something.
"In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American
arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy
among so many individuals who live in the public eye.
"In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief
Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president,
political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and
place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.
"If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about
such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their
cursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is
idiotic." -- Eric Sevareid; Via CBS-TV's 4-Part Documentary Special "A CBS
NEWS INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT"; June 1967
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
groov...@gmail.com
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5ed4d68b6ec5...
Evasive, David. Please answer the question. Did Humes and Boswell lie in
66 and 67, or not? It's very simple. Yes, or no?
BTW, Burkley suspected there may have been two head wounds. Dr. Davis said
he thought the trail of fragments were on the outside of the skull by the
supposed exit, which would make it an entrance. Two entrances=two head
wounds.
John Canal
groov...@gmail.com says...
Davis and I comunicate frequently about the headshot.
He [Davis] did see a trail of opacities extending up/in from near the EOP....the
existence of that trail, BTW, on the original lateral x-ray has been confirmed
by Dr. Zimmerman and Larry Sturdivan.
In any case, thinking it inconceivable, that the autopsy doctors could have
grosly misidentified the location of the inshoot, he tried to reconcile the
autopsists' near-EOP entry with the Clark/Baden et. al. cowlick entry by
suggesting part of the bullet could have entered near the EOP (causing the
initial trail he saw) with one fragment tunnelling up under the scalp creating
the cowlick defect and a smaller fragment exiting back out the scalp, eventually
being seen outside the skull on the film.
The rest of the FPP didn't want to hear about any theories, like Davis',
rescuing Humes' low entry and promptly ended the dscussion on that particular
theory.
FWIW, the discussions between Davis and I continue on all this, however.
John Canal
David Von Pein
No.
Happy?
groov...@gmail.com
> In article <1190931771.514788.179...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> groovyst...@gmail.com says...
I was referring to the radiologist David Davis not Joseph Davis, the
member of the FPP. Or have I got their names backwards?
John Canal
groov...@gmail.com says...
IMO, you've got something wrong. David Davis speaks of a "number of metallic
fragments extending anteriorly from the inner table of the skull at a point
approximately 6 cm" above the "previously described imbedded metallic fragment."
That imbedded fragment he's talking about is the infamous 6.5 mm, nearly round
opacity. This is the opacity that the Clark/HSCA experts said rubbed off the
bullet as it penetrated the skull in the cowlick...with the "fragment"
supposedly imbedding itself in the scalp.
Bottom line is I can't find where David Davis or Joe Davis talk about a "trail"
of fragments on the outside of the skull.
It's always possible that I missed a quote like that (although I can't imagine
any of them saying something like that).......so, if I did miss it, how about
providing the exact quote you're talking about and the citation.
John Canal
Brokedad
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5ed4d68b6ec5...
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
Thomas H. Purvis says:
"There are also people who think the Commission itself was a
conspiracy to cover up something."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
Well!
Since Mr. Von Pein, it would appear, can not comprehend "third shot", and
the fact that stationing 4+96 (5+00 minus 4 feet)is the impact of the last
shot fired in the assassination, and that this shot was fully witnessed as
to it's impact to the head of JFK, as well as the fact that both the US
Secret Service as well as the FBI determined this to have been the facts.
So Mr. Von Pein, under the assumption that the US Secret Service as well
as the FBI are considerably more competent than you, or I for that matter,
in determination of the facts, exactly what was it that makes you think
that "your" comprehension of the facts is better than either of these two
investigative entities?
For your information, this happens to be somewhat like "child's play"!
The autopsy surgeons clearly examined a bullet puncture through the skull
in the EOP Region. This entry is fully documented, and in fact can be
found within the autopsy X-rays.
The HSCA clearly determined that a bullet entrance hole existed in the
"cowlick" area of the top rear of the head of JFK. The size of this bullet
penetration through the skull of JFK did not match the measurements of the
bullet penetration which the autopsy surgeons clearly located and
measured.
Hate to be the one to inform you Mr. Von Pein, buth Jethro Bodine could
figure this one out without even having to go through all of the
discussions which I had with Dr. Boswell on the subject of the autopsy.
Your confusion also apparantly lies in "Gray's Anatomy"!
You quite obviously thoght they were referencing the "Grey's Anatomy" TV
series and went here for your anatomical lessons.
When in fact, it is the text/reference book "GRAYS ANATOMY" which you
should have taken the time to pick up and read up on.
Had you done so, then you just may have some understanding as to
exacty why there are TWO bullet pathways through the brain of JFK.
Now!
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/textsearch/advancedResults.do
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 7, Issue 3 pg 1
Found in: Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
multiple hits in this document
As the person responsible for having presented the first, absolutely
irrefutable proof of altered evidence in the WC Investigation, as well as
clearly presenting that information relative to the "Sleight-of- hand"
maneuver in regards to how Arlen Specter admitted this altered evidence
into the WC documents, then you can rest assured that the WC was covering
up "something".
There were three shots fired in the course of the assassination. These
shots were fired by an individual who was quite capable of hitting JFK 3
out of 3 shots at the short ranges.
Multiple witnesses have clearly stated of having observed the impact to
JFK of each of the three shots fired.
Only a complete idiot would believe the WC and/or Posner's version of
"THE SHOT THAT MISSED".
So, I would suppose that we know exactly where that leaves you!
Especially since the US Secret Service as well as the FBI were clearly
aware of the physical location of the Presidential Limousine and JFK
at the point of impact for each of the three shots fired.
Exactly why is it that you think that the WC attempted to get by
without even calling James Altgens to testify???????
Exactly why is it that you think that the WC decided that the last
frame of the film which was of any importance for us to see was frame#
334, which was prior to James Altgens coming into view of the film.
Exactly why is it that you think that the WC slightly mis-located
James Altgens actual position on Elm St. to the point that his "moved"
position was between Mary Moorman's position and the TSDB, when in
fact James Altgens was some 40+ feet farther down Elm St. from the
Moorman position?
Exactly why is it that you think that the WC completely and
fraudulently made a "comparison" photo of James Altgens Z255 photo
from a completely different location than where James Altgens was in
fact standing?
And, just in case you are too young to have known it, a frame of the
Z-film which clearly shows James Altgens holding his camera to his eye was
published in Newspapers nationwide only a couple of days after the
assassination.
So, exactly why, with James Altgens clear testimony;
Why, with Emmett Hudson's clear testimony:
Why, with SS Agent Glen Bennett's clear testimony;
etc; etc; etc;, did the WC decide that a shot missed, that Z313 was
the last shot fired, and that there was nothing to be gained by
showing us any of the Z-film down past Z334 which was only 22 frames/
1.8 seconds after impact of the headshot at Z313.
You can bet that the WC covered up "something"!
That something happens to be the impact location of the third/last/
final shot fired in the shooting sequence, and the clearly observed
impact of this shot striking the head of JFK down in front of James
Altgens position.
And, had you done any true research at all, then you too would know
that, just as the witnesses have stated, the "Second Shot" hit JFK in
the head, and the "Third/last/final Shot" also hit him in the head and
thereafter blew cerebral tissue forward all over Nellie Connally, just
as she has also stated.
Anthony Marsh
So, your theory is that the original FBI conclusion of three shots, three
hits is correct? And you base this solely on Argument by Authority rather
than facts?
> For your information, this happens to be somewhat like "child's play"!
>
> The autopsy surgeons clearly examined a bullet puncture through the skull
> in the EOP Region. This entry is fully documented, and in fact can be
> found within the autopsy X-rays.
>
No.
> The HSCA clearly determined that a bullet entrance hole existed in the
> "cowlick" area of the top rear of the head of JFK. The size of this bullet
> penetration through the skull of JFK did not match the measurements of the
> bullet penetration which the autopsy surgeons clearly located and
> measured.
>
Huh?
> Hate to be the one to inform you Mr. Von Pein, buth Jethro Bodine could
> figure this one out without even having to go through all of the
> discussions which I had with Dr. Boswell on the subject of the autopsy.
>
> Your confusion also apparantly lies in "Gray's Anatomy"!
>
> You quite obviously thoght they were referencing the "Grey's Anatomy" TV
> series and went here for your anatomical lessons.
>
> When in fact, it is the text/reference book "GRAYS ANATOMY" which you
> should have taken the time to pick up and read up on.
>
> Had you done so, then you just may have some understanding as to
> exacty why there are TWO bullet pathways through the brain of JFK.
>
Ah, maybe because the bullet broke up into two large pieces? Duh!
> Now!
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/textsearch/advancedResults.do
>
> Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 7, Issue 3 pg 1
> Found in: Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
> multiple hits in this document
>
> As the person responsible for having presented the first, absolutely
> irrefutable proof of altered evidence in the WC Investigation, as well as
> clearly presenting that information relative to the "Sleight-of- hand"
> maneuver in regards to how Arlen Specter admitted this altered evidence
> into the WC documents, then you can rest assured that the WC was covering
> up "something".
>
> There were three shots fired in the course of the assassination. These
> shots were fired by an individual who was quite capable of hitting JFK 3
> out of 3 shots at the short ranges.
>
> Multiple witnesses have clearly stated of having observed the impact to
> JFK of each of the three shots fired.
>
No witness has ever said that JFK was seen to be shot two times in the
head. You are misrepresenting the evidence in this case to support your
pet theory.
> Only a complete idiot would believe the WC and/or Posner's version of
> "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".
>
Well, maybe there are other versions of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED."
> So, I would suppose that we know exactly where that leaves you!
>
> Especially since the US Secret Service as well as the FBI were clearly
> aware of the physical location of the Presidential Limousine and JFK
> at the point of impact for each of the three shots fired.
>
No, they were never sure.
> Exactly why is it that you think that the WC attempted to get by
> without even calling James Altgens to testify???????
>
Maybe they were afraid of what he might say.
They didn't want to hear about Tague either.
> Exactly why is it that you think that the WC decided that the last
> frame of the film which was of any importance for us to see was frame#
> 334, which was prior to James Altgens coming into view of the film.
>
Because they saw no possibility of a shot later than that.
> Exactly why is it that you think that the WC slightly mis-located
> James Altgens actual position on Elm St. to the point that his "moved"
> position was between Mary Moorman's position and the TSDB, when in
> fact James Altgens was some 40+ feet farther down Elm St. from the
> Moorman position?
>
Please document this.
> Exactly why is it that you think that the WC completely and
> fraudulently made a "comparison" photo of James Altgens Z255 photo
> from a completely different location than where James Altgens was in
> fact standing?
>
Sloppiness.
> And, just in case you are too young to have known it, a frame of the
> Z-film which clearly shows James Altgens holding his camera to his eye was
> published in Newspapers nationwide only a couple of days after the
> assassination.
>
> So, exactly why, with James Altgens clear testimony;
> Why, with Emmett Hudson's clear testimony:
> Why, with SS Agent Glen Bennett's clear testimony;
> etc; etc; etc;, did the WC decide that a shot missed, that Z313 was
> the last shot fired, and that there was nothing to be gained by
> showing us any of the Z-film down past Z334 which was only 22 frames/
> 1.8 seconds after impact of the headshot at Z313.
>
> You can bet that the WC covered up "something"!
>
Of course, but not necessarily what your pet theory claims.
> That something happens to be the impact location of the third/last/
> final shot fired in the shooting sequence, and the clearly observed
> impact of this shot striking the head of JFK down in front of James
> Altgens position.
>
Nonsense.
> And, had you done any true research at all, then you too would know
> that, just as the witnesses have stated, the "Second Shot" hit JFK in
Only for witnesses who only remembered two shots being fired.
David Von Pein
>>> "Now, for the enjoyment of the reading public, would you care to
explain exactly why some "novice" such as myself can easily determine that
the WC re-enactment photo has little bearing on the true position of James
Altgens, when compared with his actual photo, yet, the WC, with all of
their technical expertise, could not determine that they were not in the
correct position at which James Altgens was standing? .... Inquiring minds
would like to know, Mr. Von Pein!" <<<
DAVID R. VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
And for the additional enjoyment of the reading public, perhaps Mr. Thomas
H. Purvis can explain just WHY he is so hell-bent in his desire to latch
onto so much crazy-sounding and PROVABLY-WRONG chaff (e.g., the subjective
timelines of eyewitnesses such as Emmett Hudson and James Altgens for a
shocking, unexpected 8-second event like the assassination of a President
of the United States)....
....when so much more WHEAT (i.e., provable truth) re. the event exists
elsewhere, such as in the Autopsy Report, the autopsy photographs, the
autopsy X-rays, the Zapruder Film (which, btw, shows no "second" head shot
many, many frames AFTER Z313), and in the words and observations made by
SEVENTEEN different pathologists who examined either the body of John F.
Kennedy or examined (in detail) the autopsy photos, X-rays, and the
testimony of the three autopsists?
Thomas P. is a perfect example of how a JFK researcher can get so caught
up in his own unique theories regarding this case (none of which can ever
be supported in a thousand years by the hard evidence surrounding the
assassination of JFK), that he just simply ignores the BEST evidence in
the case.
Tom has made a personal CHOICE to believe that ALL SEVENTEEN trained
pathologists who examined this case in detail from 1963 to 1978 are
dead-wrong when ALL of them--to a man (including Cyril Wecht even)-- came
to the very same overall, bottom-line conclusion regarding the ONE bullet
that struck JFK in the head....with that one head-shot bullet entering the
back of Kennedy's head and producing a large exit wound on the
right/front/top portion of his head (with the exit wound being chiefly
located in the "parietal" region of the head).
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/skull3.gif
But Thomas H. Purvis doesn't buy the above "official" conclusions reached
by SEVENTEEN different doctors. Tom's got his own unique theory he wants
to peddle. And unless I missed my guess, NOTHING will ever sway him from
his hardened beliefs with respect to his impossible and crazy theory about
JFK's head wounds.
Well, so be it. Keep clinging, Thomas, to your singular (and make-
believe) "Two Head Shots From Behind" theory if that's what you want to
do. I, however, would rather place my faith in what those OTHER 17 guys
had to say about JFK's head wounds.
By the way, just as a sidebar mention here re. Tom's subjective analysis
of the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza --- I'll re-post some information
below that I dug up out of the Warren Commission witness transcripts a
couple of years ago when the topic of the "spacing" between the gunshots
came up at another JFK Forum.
For "equal time" (dual meaning there; ~wink~), perhaps the following
witness information should be placed alongside all of Tom Purvis' posts
re. the spacing of the shots.....
There are AT LEAST seven (7) Dealey Plaza witnesses who said that the
three shots were evenly-spaced or (per Nellie Connally) with Shots 1 and 2
coming closer together than Shots 2 and 3. Let's take a gander, shall we?:
James Romack (via his Warren Commission testimony):
Mr. BELIN. How many did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4
seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was
closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They
rang out pretty fast.
-------------------
Officer Marrion L. Baker (to WC):
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I heard--now before I revved up this motorcycle,
I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.
Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of
these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they
were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.
-------------------
Tom Dillard (to WC):
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
-------------------
Mal Couch (to WC):
Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of
time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but
it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second
shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there
have been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were
relatively the same.
-------------------
Nellie Connally (to WC):
Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
recollection?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.
-------------------
Emmett Hudson (to WC):
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them
closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
-------------------
Harold Norman (Via his re-creations of what he heard):
Mr. NORMAN - Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom.
[Note: Norman always "re-created" his "Booms" and "Clicks" in a
PERFECTLY-EVEN distribution of the spacing of the gunshots.]
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11050&view=findpost&p=120622
TOM "PROMOTE AS MUCH USELESS 'CHAFF' AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE" PURVIS
GUSHED:
>>> "In regards to the WC re-enactment photo, please explain the following
--- Exactly why was the WC/FBI group so incompetent in creation of the
Altgens-6 photograph that it was taken from a completely different
location and angle as opposed to the actual Altgens-6 photo, and which is
clearly demonstrated by: A. Those letters on the "School Book Depository"
Building as shown between the forks of the live oak tree located in the
photo background....(Specifically, the "S" & the "T" showing in the true
Altgens photo, whereas the re-enactment photo shows only the "S" and a
small portion of the "I")." <<<
Super-Large-Sized "LOL" is required here!
Gee, Tom, can you GET any sillier than this?
Actually, quite to the contrary of what "Mr. Chaff" (Purvis) is saying
above in his ridiculous post, I have always remarked to myself (whenever
looking at CE900, which shows the re-enactment photo in question) at how
spot-on ACCURATE the "lining up" of the May 1964 FBI re-enactment photo
truly is to the actual photo taken by assassination eyewitness James
Altgens.
Here's CE900 right here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0054a.htm
Give or take an INCH or two, the above-linked re-construction photo is
just about as PERFECT as you could possibly get. And this is proven by the
letter "S" in "DEPOSITORY" that is showing through the branches of the oak
tree in BOTH the actual Altgens picture and in the FBI's re- enactment
photograph.
But, to a Chaff-meister named "Tom", I guess the above re-enactment photo
is just not nearly accurate enough (for some reason)...and, therefore, it
MUST mean that Altgens was really in a totally-different location relative
to the re-enactment photo shown in CE900.
Un-be-liev-able!
Carry on, Mr. Chaff. I look forward to your next silly argument that will
highlight something completely meaningless and useless.
Anthony Marsh
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11050&view=findpost&p=120622
>
>
> TOM "PROMOTE AS MUCH USELESS 'CHAFF' AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE" PURVIS
> GUSHED:
>
>>>> "In regards to the WC re-enactment photo, please explain the following
> --- Exactly why was the WC/FBI group so incompetent in creation of the
> Altgens-6 photograph that it was taken from a completely different
> location and angle as opposed to the actual Altgens-6 photo, and which is
> clearly demonstrated by: A. Those letters on the "School Book Depository"
> Building as shown between the forks of the live oak tree located in the
> photo background....(Specifically, the "S" & the "T" showing in the true
> Altgens photo, whereas the re-enactment photo shows only the "S" and a
> small portion of the "I")." <<<
>
>
What do you expect? It was government work.
> Super-Large-Sized "LOL" is required here!
>
> Gee, Tom, can you GET any sillier than this?
>
> Actually, quite to the contrary of what "Mr. Chaff" (Purvis) is saying
> above in his ridiculous post, I have always remarked to myself (whenever
> looking at CE900, which shows the re-enactment photo in question) at how
> spot-on ACCURATE the "lining up" of the May 1964 FBI re-enactment photo
> truly is to the actual photo taken by assassination eyewitness James
> Altgens.
>
> Here's CE900 right here:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0054a.htm
>
> Give or take an INCH or two, the above-linked re-construction photo is
> just about as PERFECT as you could possibly get. And this is proven by the
> letter "S" in "DEPOSITORY" that is showing through the branches of the oak
> tree in BOTH the actual Altgens picture and in the FBI's re- enactment
> photograph.
>
No way. It is obviously off, and more than an inch.
pjsp...@aol.com
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
With this post, David reveals the blatant disingenuosness of so many
single-assassin theorists. To support that three evenly-spaced shots were
fired by a bolt-action rifle, he uses WC testimony taken 4 months or more
after the assassination, after the witnesses had been told by the media
and their government that Oswald had acted alone. He avoids the earliest
statements of the witnesses like the plague. Below is what Norman REALLY
said. One should note the gradual changes in his statements, whereby
after months and then years, he comes to say what DVP and others want him
to say. One should also note that the two men with him, James Jarman and
Bonnie Ray Williams, both INSISTED that the last two shots were bunched
closely together. Williams, in fact, originally believed there'd only been
two shots, a fact DVP would like to ignore. That, through December 63, all
three men below the sniper's nest believed that either the last two shots
were close together, or one shot, should have meaning to supposedly
rational men like VB and DVP. But, instead, they run from it like chicken
little, and simply pretend it's likely all three men were wrong. It's
not.
David, I challenge you to go through the eyewitness statements collected
at patspeer.com and show how these support VB's and Lattimer's and
Posner's and Myers' theory. They don't. The popular SA theory is in
direct opposition to the bulk of the eyewitnesses. Now, please, get off
your high-horse and concoct a SA theory that holds water, or quit
pretending that SA's are rational and dutifully follow the evidence, under
the belief that early eyewitness statements are the most reliable. .
>From chapter 8 at patspeer.com
Harold Norman (11-26-63 FBI report, CD5 p26) "He stated that about the
time the car in which the president was riding turned on to Elm Street, he
heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor
directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from
the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because
small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two
additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the
window." (12-4-63 affidavit to the Secret Service, 17H208) "Just after the
President passed by I heard a shot and several seconds later, I heard two
more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I
could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear
the bolt action of the rifle...I saw all of the people down on the street
run toward the west side of the building, so I went to that side with
Williams and Jarman." (12-7-63 Secret Service Report based on interviews
conducted between 12-2 and 12-5, CD87 p783) "Just after the President
passed their position, Norman heard a shot fired and several seconds
later, he heard two more shots spaced closely together. Norman claims that
he knew immediately that the shots had come from directly above his
position." (3-18-64 statement to the FBI, 22H666) "I was with James Jarman
and Bonnie Ray Williams watching the motorcade bearing President John F.
Kennedy pass the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard three
shots fired from, I believe, the floor directly above me." (3-24-64
testimony before the Warren Commission, 3H186-198) "About the time that he
got past the window where I was, well, it seems as though he was, I mean
you, brushing his hair. Maybe he was looking at the public...I can't
remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after
I heard a shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped
or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told
me, he said "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think
I made a statement "it is someone shooting at the President, and I believe
it came from up above us. Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but
I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded
like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle."
(Interview with CBS aired 9-27-64) "But before the third shot was fired I
told the guys that, you know, I believed the shot came from the building
above us. And eventually, I guess, they agreed with me, because one of the
guys said "I believe you're right." And I said "I know I'm right" because
I could hear something sound as though the shells were hitting the floor
and I could hear the ejection of the rifle clicks like that, you know."
(Interview with CBS aired 9-27-64, later in the same broadcast) "Well, I
was looking out the window and the first shot was fired. Well, it-you
know, shook the building a little bit. It was just that powerful. Then
after the second shot was fired, well, I saw the people. They were all
falling on the ground. And I told one of the fellows. I say, "That shot
came from this building." And then by this time I heard the third shot.
And one of the guys told me, he said, "I believe you're right." And I say
"I know I am." And then I could, you know, also hear the hulls, empty
hulls, the cartridges, hitting the floor, and I could hear the rejection
of the rifle, whatever it was. And the first thing I thought is we better
get out from here because I know I didn't want to get involved in anything
like that..." (Interview with CBS broadcast 6-25-67, additional portions
broadcast in 1992) "And then I think about that time, Jarman says
"Somebody's shooting at the President." And I told Jarman, I said "I know
it is" because I could hear it being above me and I could hear the shots
and everything. And I could even now hear the empty cartridge hit the
floor I mean after the shots had been fired. And so, after the shots were
fired, well all the officers and everyone else seemed to think it came
from down the track down by the underpass cause that's where everyone ran
down thatta way. But just like I've said, I've been hunting enough to
know the sound of a rifle from a backfire or a firecracker, especially
this close to me." (When asked how many shots he heard) "Three. I'd say
just about like this BOOM... click click...BOOM...click click...BOOM.
Something similar to that." (Testimony in a 1986 mock trial televised as
"Lee Harvey Oswald: On Trial," as posted on line by David Von Pein) (When
asked how many shots he heard) "Total of three." (When asked how he could
tell the shots came from above) "Because I could hear the empty hulls--
that's what I call them--hit the floor and I could hear the bolt action of
the rifle being pulled back and forward." (When asked how many hulls he
heard hit the floor.) "Three." (Interview with PBS Frontline, 1993) "We
was sitting on the fifth floor, directly under the sixth floor windows.
The shots came from above and there was a gun and the shots were sounding,
"Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click." So there was
three shots fired right up over us when we were sitting on the fifth
floor." Analysis: as Norman's earliest statements indicate he heard three
booms but only one or two shells ejected (Williams quoted him as saying
"shell"), his words leave open the possibility that only two shots were
fired from directly above him. As he testified to two shots-a first one
that hit- and a second one that Jarman said was the last shot, and then
back- tracked and said "I couldn't see at all at the time but I know I
heard a third shot fired" it certainly seems his memory of this third shot
is unclear. As Bonnie Ray Williams initially left out a shot altogether,
there's reason to believe Norman barely remembered this same shot. As
Norman's earliest statements mention "two additional shots" and "two more
shots," without mention of a five second gap between them, and as the
Secret Service noted that he'd said they were "spaced closely together",
it certainly seems reasonable to assume he initially thought these last
two shots were close together. There was so much talking going on amongst
the three men on the fifth floor, however, that it's hard to say for sure.
What one can say for sure, thanks to Norman's second CBS interview of
9-27-67, is that he agreed with Jarman that people hit the dirt after the
second shot. As the Zapruder film and the statements of the eyewitnesses
indicate that no one hit the dirt till after the head shot, this indicates
he heard a shot after the head shot. Finally, while some use Norman's
latter day statements as proof that all three shots came from above, they
fail to mention that Norman said he could only tell that the shots came
from above by the sound of the hulls hitting the floor, and that he didn't
become sure of the number of shots or their timing until years after the
shooting. As it defies belief that Norman, with Williams and Jarman
yelling and jumping around and loud shots being fired only a few feet
away, actually counted the hulls as they hit the floor above him, and
failed to mention this to anyone until years later, his 1986 statements in
the televised mock trial would appear to have been "coached."
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/16455b4827c95aba
Pat,
Do you seriously expect me to totally change my viewpoint regarding
Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of JFK and Harold
Norman's observations surrounding that murder because of what you have
laid out in your lengthy post above?
It appears as though Patrick Speer is illustrating (once again) what
many CTers love to illustrate when discussing certain sub-topics
relating to November 22nd, 1963 -- CTers LOVE to latch onto that
chaff....even though a field loaded with wheat is also available for
the pickin'.
Bottom line is still this re. Harold Norman's observations (which are
observations backed up, for the most part, by Bonnie Ray Williams and
James Jarman Jr.):
Norman heard exactly THREE shots being fired from a rifle on the
Depository's 6th Floor (southeast corner window). And Norman heard
shells ("hulls") falling to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING ITSELF (not
later), which proves right there that the shells certainly weren't
"planted" in the Sniper's Nest...unless CTers want to go further off
the deep end of absurdity and theorize that somebody up on the sixth
floor was "planting" fake bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest in REAL
TIME, as the assassination was occurring!
Now, I suppose we can argue all day long about the exact SPACING of
the gunshots that Harold Norman heard coming from the PRECISE LOCATION
WHERE LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS SEEN PULLING THE TRIGGER BY ANOTHER (non-
Norman) WITNESS and where lots of additional "OSWALD WAS HERE SHOOTING
AT JFK" evidence was found just after the shooting.
But every time I ever saw Norman on TV re-creating the shots, he
always said the shots were pretty much evenly distributed. If you want
to think he was coerced or "coached" in those post-1963 "re-
creations", then by all means think it. You won't be the first.
But if Norman was "coached" by people like Vincent Bugliosi in 1986
(and several other people over the years too), I'd like to know WHY
Mr. Norman just didn't refuse to testify at the '86 Mock Trial, and
why he didn't merely refuse to talk to these TV people after the
assassination?
Nobody was FORCING Norman to take that witness stand in 1986 (no
subpoenas were issued for that Mock Trial in England; every witness
that appeared did so voluntarily)....and I doubt that any television
producer ever held a gun to Mr. Norman's head during all of those
other times he appeared on TV either.
In short -- Do CTers think Norman ENJOYED lying his ass off so much
re. the timing of the shots (etc.) that he would seek out such TV
attention for years on end? If he was covering up the truth about
something, does it seem logical he would have WANTED to appear on
camera to continue to tell his lies? Or would he want to probably stay
in the background, away from the cameras? (If I had even a shred of
self-respect left in my body, I think I'd choose the latter option.
But, YMMV I suppose.)
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but Harold Norman didn't seem like a
publicity seeker to me. He seemed to me like a very honest, reserved,
quiet individual. And he never struck me as a teller of wild or untrue
tales either.
But, regardless of the EXACT SPACING of the shots that Norman heard,
one thing is undeniably clear from the SUM TOTAL of all of the
comments Norman had to make about that tragic day in Dallas, and that
one crystal-clear thing is this --- Somebody fired three bullets from
a rifle at President Kennedy's car at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 from
directly above Harold Norman's fifth-story TSBD window.
And, IMO, it's very important to note that just that "THREE SHOTS WERE
FIRED ABOVE ME" portion of Norman's testimony ALONE totally
corroborates and confirms OTHER key assassination-solving facts that
were learned later on November 22nd (i.e., facts that Norman could not
possibly have known anything about as of 12:30 PM on 11/22)....such
as:
1.) Howard Brennan's observations from outside the building;
2.) The three spent cartridges FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE that were found
underneath the VERY SAME WINDOW from where Norman heard the shots
fired;
3.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle being found on that very same floor from
where Norman heard the shots fired;
4.) And Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being discovered on
various objects NEAR THAT EXACT SAME WINDOW.
Overall, Harold Norman was a very good witness and a very important
one, in that his "AS-IT-WAS-HAPPENING" earwitness observations at
12:30 PM on 11/22, and just those observations ALONE, drive a stake in
several different conspiracy theories, which are the crazy theories
that suggest the idea that three shots were NOT fired from the
southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository that
Friday (by Lee Oswald or by anybody else).
Robert Groden's wild theory, to name just one, is doomed for all time,
thanks to Mr. Norman all by himself.
======================
More stuff relating to Harold Norman:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (In July 1986 at the TV Docu-Trial in London, "On
Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald") -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"
HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired directly
above you?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound of
the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
from directly above you?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"
NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call
them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle
being pushed back and forward."
BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
NORMAN -- "Three."
BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of the
cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that
you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"
NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of the
assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book
Depository Building?"
NORMAN -- "No sir."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa26e26f62263eeb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
pjsp...@aol.com
DVP, I take your response as an admission that the currently popular
SA theory is at odds with the eyewitness evidence. This is not chaff,
by any means. A competent and committed defense attorney could
establish reasonable doubt on this fact alone. It always seems odd to
me that SA theorists need Oswald to be the only shooter. Why not just
say "one shot may have been fired from somewhere else," and make the
case that Oswald fired at least two shots? Then, you'd have the
eyewitnesses to back you up. I suspect the answer is that it just
feels wrong to believe the FBI and WC could overlook that another
shooter was likely.
Well, NEWS FLASH...it is an historical fact that the FBI refused to
look at the autopsy report for more than a month after the
assassination...it is an historical fact that the FBI proposed that
the second shot occurred when Kennedy was in the location of frame
313, and that the third shot came much later, and that they continued
to tout this conclusion after viewing the Zapruder and Nix films,
which PROVE this to be false...it is an historical fact that Hoover
lied to the Warren Commission and told them that the FBI had not made
any mistakes contributing to Kennedy's death, when he'd already
punished 17 of his employees for what he viewed as errors contributing
to Kennedy's death.... In light of these facts, why should we believe
they made a good-faith effort to solve the case? we shouldn't.
Anthony Marsh
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/16455b4827c95aba
>
> Pat,
>
> Do you seriously expect me to totally change my viewpoint regarding
> Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of JFK and Harold
> Norman's observations surrounding that murder because of what you have
> laid out in your lengthy post above?
>
> It appears as though Patrick Speer is illustrating (once again) what
> many CTers love to illustrate when discussing certain sub-topics
> relating to November 22nd, 1963 -- CTers LOVE to latch onto that
> chaff....even though a field loaded with wheat is also available for
> the pickin'.
>
> Bottom line is still this re. Harold Norman's observations (which are
> observations backed up, for the most part, by Bonnie Ray Williams and
> James Jarman Jr.):
>
> Norman heard exactly THREE shots being fired from a rifle on the
> Depository's 6th Floor (southeast corner window). And Norman heard
> shells ("hulls") falling to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING ITSELF (not
> later), which proves right there that the shells certainly weren't
> "planted" in the Sniper's Nest...unless CTers want to go further off
> the deep end of absurdity and theorize that somebody up on the sixth
> floor was "planting" fake bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest in REAL
> TIME, as the assassination was occurring!
>
The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from Oswald's
rifle in the sniper's nest during the assassination.
Weak.
> 2.) The three spent cartridges FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE that were found
> underneath the VERY SAME WINDOW from where Norman heard the shots
> fired;
>
The placement and location could have been done after the shooting.
> 3.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle being found on that very same floor from
> where Norman heard the shots fired;
>
Not yet proof that it was fired.
> 4.) And Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being discovered on
> various objects NEAR THAT EXACT SAME WINDOW.
>
Yeah, he worked there. Duh!
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144b.htm
CE585
Anthony;
Did you also sleep through this part of the lecture as well?
If so, I would suppose that not unlike many of your other answers, you
will have to "guess" exactly where on Elm St. the impact point of that
demonstrated third shot was.
For those who do not like having to guess, it is at stationing 4+95, some
30-feet past the point of impact for the Z313 headshot, and almost 15-feet
directly in front of the position at which James Altgens was standing.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head-- about
15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs.
Kennedy was riding in the car.
Mr. ALTGENS - There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his
head in my direction from where I was standing,
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential
car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back
up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the
President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good
closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it
would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I
had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got
with my camera.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z341.jpg ***
*** You just may want to take a good close look at this frame of the Z-
film.
Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third
shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off
and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but
actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and
there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Anthony: Exactly what part of LAST SHOT was it that you did not
understand?
Brokedad
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11050&view=f...
>
> TOM "PROMOTE AS MUCH USELESS 'CHAFF' AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE" PURVIS
> GUSHED:
>
> >>> "In regards to the WC re-enactment photo, please explain the following
>
> --- Exactly why was the WC/FBI group so incompetent in creation of the
> Altgens-6 photograph that it was taken from a completely different
> location and angle as opposed to the actual Altgens-6 photo, and which is
> clearly demonstrated by: A. Those letters on the "School Book Depository"
> Building as shown between the forks of the live oak tree located in the
> photo background....(Specifically, the "S" & the "T" showing in the true
> Altgens photo, whereas the re-enactment photo shows only the "S" and a
> small portion of the "I")." <<<
>
> Super-Large-Sized "LOL" is required here!
>
> Gee, Tom, can you GET any sillier than this?
>
> Actually, quite to the contrary of what "Mr. Chaff" (Purvis) is saying
> above in his ridiculous post, I have always remarked to myself (whenever
> looking at CE900, which shows the re-enactment photo in question) at how
> spot-on ACCURATE the "lining up" of the May 1964 FBI re-enactment photo
> truly is to the actual photo taken by assassination eyewitness James
> Altgens.
>
> Here's CE900 right here:
>
>
> Give or take an INCH or two, the above-linked re-construction photo is
> just about as PERFECT as you could possibly get. And this is proven by the
> letter "S" in "DEPOSITORY" that is showing through the branches of the oak
> tree in BOTH the actual Altgens picture and in the FBI's re- enactment
> photograph.
>
> But, to a Chaff-meister named "Tom", I guess the above re-enactment photo
> is just not nearly accurate enough (for some reason)...and, therefore, it
> MUST mean that Altgens was really in a totally-different location relative
> to the re-enactment photo shown in CE900.
>
> Un-be-liev-able!
>
> Carry on, Mr. Chaff. I look forward to your next silly argument that will
> highlight something completely meaningless and useless.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
Well!
Since you did such a fantastic job of having explained all of that away,
why not also explain exactly why the WC deemed it necessary to completely
alter their own evidence prior to admitting it into the record.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
***
For those who may be unaware, the WC did no survey work for Z-frames
161/166/ & 210.
This "Data Block", of which the unaltered version appears on the full
size copy of the WC Survey Plat, was altered and thusly admitted into
evidence separately from the actual survey.
Whereas, the actual survey plat was admitted into evidence in a sealed
envelope and never taken out of this envelope.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm
Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West,
county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County
Courthouse, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you
today?
Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that?
Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the
tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this
container.
Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the
cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a
large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.
Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of
the tracing which you have in your hand?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained
thereon.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for
identification.)
Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat
map.
137
It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates
elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame
positions to the window and to a horizontal line.
It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances
from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail
height.
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the
description of the general setting.
I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence
of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used
heretofore.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Hate to be the one to again have to inform such highly uninformed
persons as Mr. Von Pein (and others), but the Data Block on the true
survey plat DOES NOT match those numbers as presented in CE884.
And, had Mr. Von Pein ever known what a "Leroy Set" was, then he would
have immediately recognized this as well.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/16455b4827c95aba
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/cfe2fbc092a445b2
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5b4aeb10dec40eb2
>>> "To support that three evenly-spaced shots were fired by a bolt-action
rifle, he {DVP} uses WC testimony taken 4 months or more after the
assassination, after the witnesses had been told by the media and their
government that Oswald had acted alone. He avoids the earliest statements
of the witnesses like the plague. .... This is not chaff, by any means. A
competent and committed defense attorney could establish reasonable doubt
on this fact alone." <<<
When thinking some more about witness Harold Norman and his comments made
after the assassination, this thought struck me:
The argument about the SPACING between the gunshots that Norman heard is
really kind of an irrelevant and unimportant argument.
Why?
Because regardless of the exact number of seconds that passed between the
three shots, ALL THREE OF THOSE SHOTS CAME FROM THE SAME RIFLE ABOVE
NORMAN'S HEAD.
And surely no conspiracy theorist wants to propose a theory that has TWO
gunmen and TWO different rifles being fired from the Sniper's Nest window
on the 6th Floor directly above Mr. Norman's head....do they?
Therefore, no matter what the precise spacing was between the shots, per
Norman's never-wavering "I HEARD THREE SHOTS FROM ABOVE ME" account of the
shooting, it HAS to mean that the ONE gunman WAS able to fire those three
shots from the gunman's ONE rifle in the allotted time to get off three
such shots from his bolt-action weapon.
The same argument I just made re. Norman could also be made when it comes
to many of the other Dealey Plaza witnesses, i.e., the witnesses who fall
into the following category: "I HEARD EXACTLY THREE SHOTS AND ALL OF THOSE
SHOTS CAME FROM THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
That is to say: What major difference does it really make what the precise
SPACING was between these three shots, which were ALL shots (per those
witnesses in the category just mentioned) that VERY LIKELY CAME FROM THE
VERY SAME GUN?
So, given these parameters that many witnesses DO agree on (i.e., exactly
3 shots fired and all coming from ONE rear location at or very near the
Texas School Book Depository Building), the "spacing" issue is largely a
moot point altogether.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7ce08bec9f32e753
>>> "Hate to be the one to again have to inform such highly uninformed
persons as Mr. Von Pein (and others), but the Data Block on the true
survey plat DOES NOT match those numbers as presented in CE884. And, had
Mr. Von Pein ever known what a "Leroy Set" was, then he would have
immediately recognized this as well." <<<
Thank the Maker we have Thomas H. Purvis (aka "Impoverished Male
Parent"/"Brokedad") to explain all of this stuff to us.
But where the heck were you back in 1978 during the HSCA hearings when
your country needed your vast expertise the most, Mr. Purvis??
And how did all of this data about "TWO HEADS SHOTS FROM THE REAR" slip
through the cracks during the two-year HSCA investigation? (Or was every
member of THAT 1977-1979 panel involved in "covering up" the true nature
of JFK's wounds too?)
And please, Mr. Purvis, explain to us how in the wide, wide world of
sports (and the wide world of conspiracies!) did ALL NINE PATHOLOGISTS
(including Conspiracy-lover Extraordinaire Cyril H. Wecht) manage to MISS
that second entry hole to the back of John Kennedy's head in the
photographs and X-rays?
And how in this same world did ALL of the many, many PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERTS
who pored over those autopsy photos and X-rays for the HSCA in the late
1970s manage to ALL miss seeing these things that are oh so obvious to
Thomas H. Purvis?
I salute you, Mr. Purvis. You have done the impossible. You have
single-handedly managed to rip to shreds the entire 10-month Warren
Commission probe, the two-year HSCA investigation, the November 1963
autopsy report signed by all 3 autopsists, and the findings of the
four-member Clark Panel from 1968.
ONLY Thomas H. Purvis sees the TRUTH re. the true wounds that were
sustained by President Kennedy in Dallas in 1963!
And while the rest of the world flounders in total abject ignorance about
so many things connected to the JFK murder case (both "CTers" and "LNers"
alike), Mr. Thomas H. Purvis can sleep comfortably in his bed at
night....because he knows he is the ONLY person in the vast universe who
possesses the whole truth surrounding the events of November 22, 1963.
It must be lonely being the only person who knows this long-sought- after
truth. It must also be quite a burden to carry on his shoulders each and
every day of the year, too. Right, Mr. Purvis?
Or, to relieve that painful and longstanding loneliness, perhaps Mr.
Purvis (after a long and arduous search no doubt) has somehow managed to
locate that FIRST ADDITIONAL PERSON ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET who
actually agrees with his "Two Head Shots From The Rear" theory?
Have you located that individual to date, Mr. Purvis?
And I'm still scratching my head as I continue to be mired in a state of
complete perplexity when it comes to the question of how all nine members
of the FPP for the HSCA somehow managed to miss that second entry hole in
JFK's head.
But, maybe Thomas would care to explain to all of us dumbasses here on
Planet Earth just exactly how those nine doctors were able to miss
something like that. I'd enjoy hearing that explanation. (Plus I look
forward to the good, healthy laughfest that will undoubtedly ensue just
after said explanation.)
Anthony Marsh
I don't get this point at all. The data is there for those frame, but it
was not the WC which did the work. The FBI and SS did it for them.
> This "Data Block", of which the unaltered version appears on the full
> size copy of the WC Survey Plat, was altered and thusly admitted into
> evidence separately from the actual survey.
> Whereas, the actual survey plat was admitted into evidence in a sealed
> envelope and never taken out of this envelope.
>
All that means is that the original was kept sealed and copies were used
in presentations. We already know that the West survey was inaccurate.
So what? Why would you expect any accuracy from government work?
Anthony Marsh
What lecture?
> If so, I would suppose that not unlike many of your other answers, you
> will have to "guess" exactly where on Elm St. the impact point of that
> demonstrated third shot was.
>
That is not a demonstrated third shot.
> For those who do not like having to guess, it is at stationing 4+95, some
> 30-feet past the point of impact for the Z313 headshot, and almost 15-feet
> directly in front of the position at which James Altgens was standing.
>
That map is inaccurate. And if you start depending on things like that
as proof, its second shot would not be at Z-313 either, and yet we can
see a shot hit at Z-313.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
> would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head-- about
> 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs.
> Kennedy was riding in the car.
>
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his
> head in my direction from where I was standing,
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential
> car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back
> up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the
> President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good
> closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it
> would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I
> had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got
> with my camera.
>
Do not cite eyewitness testimony as proof of a fact.
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z341.jpg ***
>
> *** You just may want to take a good close look at this frame of the Z-
> film.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third
> shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off
> and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but
> actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and
> there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now Anthony: Exactly what part of LAST SHOT was it that you did not
> understand?
>
>
Your theory is wacky and you have not presenting any evidence.
Anthony Marsh
No, and you have not presented any evidence to support that.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/25/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=623&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx29E6QN2K2Z9IJ#Mx29E6QN2K2Z9IJ
MORE RE. NORMAN AND THE "TIMING/SPACING" ISSUE...........
It's obvious to anyone (except a rabid CTer who desperately wants a
conspiracy) that Harold Norman heard ONE gunman recycling a manual
bolt-action rifle and firing exactly THREE shots from ONE rifle directly
above Norman's head in the Book Depository.
And since the above facts are so obviously true....this means that the
TIMING (or "spacing") issue is a completely moot and unimportant one FOR
THE PURPOSES WITH WHICH CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WISH TO USE THE SO- CALLED
"SPACING PROBLEM" (i.e., the "problem" of ONE man with ONE bolt- action
rifle being able to fire three shots from the Sniper's Nest during the few
seconds when JFK was on Elm Street).
That "problem" immediately vaporizes into thin air when looking at Harold
Norman's testimony all by itself.
And many, many other witnesses can be placed in the same "general"
category that Norman resides in -- i.e., "I HEARD EXACTLY THREE SHOTS
COMING FROM *ONE* LOCATION AT OR NEAR THE BOOK DEPOSITORY".
CTers, naturally, HAVE to believe that ALL of those many witnesses who
fall into the above category are 100% wrong about TWO things (the total
number of gunshots fired in the Plaza and the ONE general REAR location
for all of the three shots they said they heard)....but most of those same
witnesses are positively RIGHT (per CTers) about the precise "spacing"
between the shots they said they heard.
But if the majority of those "3-Shot, 1-Rear Direction" witnesses are
correct about those TWO things (number of shots and the location of all
the shots), and OTHER evidence gathered after the assassination most
certainly indicates that they were 100% correct about those two things,
then the spacing problem isn't a problem at all....because it means that
the lone gunman firing those three shots DID, indeed, fire three shots
from his one gun while JFK was below on Elm Street --- REGARDLESS OF THE
SPACING BETWEEN THOSE GUNSHOTS.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/25/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=624&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxB1L7TH75GIX9#MxB1L7TH75GIX9
A CTer (RICHARD VAN NOORD) SAID:
>>> "And regardless of whether it was impossible or not...physics be
damned." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Some of the witnesses were simply wrong about the exact spacing of shots 2
and 3. And I've yet to encounter a single witness who was "logging in" the
precise timing of any of the gunshots with a stopwatch.
Harold Norman's testimony absolutely proves that the "spacing" issue is
pretty much a meaningless one. And the MANY other Dealey Plaza witnesses
who fall into the "3 Shots From The TSBD" category generally prove the
very same thing. (Although not QUITE as rock-solidly as Harold Norman
proves it...because no other witness was nearly as close to Oswald and the
Sniper's Perch as was Norman.)
HOW MANY SHOTS DID YOU HEAR?:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM?:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
But when we put Norman's "3 Shots" testimony together with the many, many
other witnesses who heard basically the same "3 TSBD Shots" thing, it
doesn't take an Einstein to figurte this thing out--whoever it was who
fired those three shots WAS able to fire them on November 22nd.
But...let's just let common sense and THE BULK OF THE 3-SHOT WITNESSES be
damned, right Richard?
groov...@gmail.com
At patspeer.com, chapter 2b, I use FBI exhibits to show that they placed
the second shot at a point when Kennedy was in front of the pedestal. In
this SAME FBI exhibit they discuss viewing the Nix film, which
demonstrates to anyone with a brain that the head shot took place at this
exact same location. SO...one is left with a dilemma...either A the FBI
was too incompetent to figure out, even after watching the Nix film, just
where the head shot occurred OR B they honestly believed the second shot
was the head shot. I suspect option A. Tom picks option B. There are no
other options.
groov...@gmail.com
DVP, your efforts to cloud the issue fall flat. Norman never mentioned
counting the shells as they fell. Instead, he mentioned yelling to Jarman
in the middle of it all, and that a third shot was in there somewhere.
So yes, he heard three shots, but no, his words and his words alone can
not be used to prove there were three shots fired from directly above him.
To someone standing back from a window all sounds come from outside.
The HSCA tested the reactions of earwitnesses in the plaza. You would do
well to acquaint yourself with their results.
>From patspeer.com, chapter 9:
When one reads a rarely-cited HSCA analysis of the way gunshots are heard
in Dealey Plaza, one can see for oneself that it is indeed fairly easy to
distinguish shots from echoes in Dealey Plaza. The writer of this report,
Harvard Psychophysics Professor David Green, makes a point of stating that
although his hearing was impaired in his left ear, and he was unable to
hear the echoes with the clarity of the trained observers, he was
nonetheless able to localize the shots based on their initial blast with a
similar degree of accuracy as the experts. In the report, the trained
observers state that there is a strong echo from the Post Office Annex on
the south side of the plaza that comes a second after a shot fired from
the TSBD. They said it was readily distinguishable as an echo, but that
someone on the knoll hearing this echo might misinterpret the original
source of the sound as coming from an area directly behind himself. OK,
so that could be an explanation as to why the witnesses on the knoll were
incorrect, but what about those in front of the TSBD? Well, the report
goes on to say that it would be difficult for someone standing in front of
the TSBD to immediately localize a sound high overhead, and that some of
the witnesses may have localized on a subsequent echo coming 8/10 of a
second later from the area of the overpass "especially if the rifle had
been fired from well within the TSBD."
This disclaimer indicates that Dr. Green didn't really believe his offered
explanation, as he knew or should have known that the rifle in the TSBD
was seen sticking out the window and that the window was not open
sufficiently high enough for someone to fire from back inside the
building. Similarly, since the theoretical ability of a lone sniper to
shoot accurately from this window is based upon his use of the boxes
stacked in front of the window for support, this statement argues against
a lone gunman's ability to shoot 3 accurate shots from the sniper's nest
without his giving away his position to a far greater degree than actually
occurred. This disclaimer, therefore, can be taken as yet another argument
for shots or sounds coming from more than one location, as a lone sniper
shooting from the sixth floor window should have been more readily
identifiable. Indeed, in his appearance before the committee, Green made
this point abundantly clear.
He said "there are certain locations that are best for observing certain
shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the
street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came
from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort
of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular
surface of the building and it was quite evident." Unstated but implied in
Green's report is his knowledge that 11 of the 14 witnesses in this
"general region" in front of the depository, including those on its front
steps, nevertheless believed the shots came from somewhere else, with 9
pointing west, the direction of the railroad yards and the knoll. Green's
attempts to account for this anomaly by suggesting that the rifle was
fired from well within the building, as opposed to the more logical
possibility that the bullets were undercharged in order to create less
noise-which was believed to have been beyond the "lone nut" Oswald's
capabilities-- or that the witnesses were simply responding to the last
sound they heard, which came from the west, is nevertheless informative,
as it indicates a second rifle firing from well within either the Dal-Tex
or County Records buildings would not necessarily have been interpreted as
coming from those locations, even if the weapon were not equipped with a
silencer. This is significant
But that is not all the report has to offer. Although, strangely, no
rapid fire sequences with shots alternating between the grassy knoll and
the TSBD were attempted for the study, the witnesses were able to
distinguish isolated shots between the locations with relative ease, with
over 85% accuracy, including pistol shots from the knoll and rifle shots
from well within the TSBD. When one looks only at the results of the
rifle shots fired from the window and any shot fired from the knoll, one
sees that the observers correctly identified the source 73 out of 80
times, no matter where they stood in Dealey Plaza. When one looks only at
the results gleaned from the observers while they stood near the knoll,
one sees they correctly identified the source of the shots 26 out of 26
times, claiming that the un- silenced shots fired were readily
identifiable as coming from the stockade fence, which argues against a
shot coming from that location, as most the witnesses nearby, including
Abraham Zapruder, believed the shots came from somewhere further back.
(Why they failed to perform tests using silenced weapons is never
explained.) When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers
while they stood on the street in front of the Depository, in addition, it
reveals they correctly identified the source 18 of 20 times.
These actual results reveal that the report's musings about people being
confused by echoes on the knoll and shock waves in front of the TSBD was
so much hooey, offered most likely so that the HSCA would have the option
of defending the Warren Commission's conclusions. Instead, the results
reveal it's fairly easy to identify the source of a shot fired in Dealey
Plaza under normal circumstances. And yet the single-assassin theorists
maintain that the 7 out of 9 witnesses between the knoll and the limousine
who heard shots from behind them were wrong, in a location where the
observers were right 26 out of 26 times, and also that the 5 out of 6
witnesses on the North side of Elm who said shots came from the west, were
wrong, in a location where the observers were right 18 of 20 times.
These results indicate that it is the single-assassin theorists who are
wrong, yet again. That those convinced of a conspiracy have failed to
embrace this report as the convincing argument for a conspiracy that it is
can only be explained by their blind reluctance to embrace any evidence or
testimony that calls into doubt that the head shot came from the stockade
fence.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/26/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=629&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2N474MNUDL2KB#Mx2N474MNUDL2KB
>>> "As for Norman, his testimony can be interpreted by you as: three
shots, one person....or three shots, two people....or three shots, shots
two and three very close together. I find it funny they hear the shells
hit the floor, but not the assailant walk or run across the floor above
them. That's another one that stretches the bounds of imagination." <<<
I guess in a CTer's unique conspiracy-flavored world, Harold Norman heard
three shots from TWO guns being fired from the small Sniper's Nest
directly above Norman's head. And Howard Brennan just happened to miss
seeing the second gun being aimed at JFK.
And I guess the shooters got lucky when only ONE rifle (or "pipe") was
seen protruding from the window by witnesses Euins, Jackson, and Couch
too.
And (evidently, per Mr. Van Noord) it would seem that NOBODY physically
walked or ran out of the Sniper's Nest at all! Because, per the CT mantra,
since Norman & Co. didn't hear any footsteps leaving the SN, it must mean
that OSWALD wasn't up there.
But what about the one or MORE "real killers" (per CTers) who were in the
SN? Didn't any of them have legs and feet?
Or do CTers want to purport that the real killers just stayed inside the
Sniper's Nest for several minutes after the shooting, knowing full well
that the place would be crawling with cops very soon?
So many conspiracy theories....so little (common) sense do ANY of them
make.
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually!
Since Tom is in possession of the survey notes, as well as the Survey
plats, he prefers to stick with "Option C", which clearly demonstrates
the location of JFK for impact of the first shot, which is just behind
the sign, the impact of the second shot, which happens to be directly
out from the pedestal and shortly after JFK had passed the first
yellow stripe on the Elm St. Curb (aka Z313 impact point, and
thereafter clearly demonstrates the impact point for the third/last/
final shot which impacted:
Mr. Hudson: Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these
steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired -
somewhere right along in there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jfk.org/Oral_Histories/Oral_His...st.asp?Letter=s
Malcolm Summers
Well, then the car kept coming, and then the second shot rang out. And
then the third was just about where I was at, rang out
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
Malcolm Summers & James Altgens (Malcolm Summers diving to the
ground)
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z347.jpg
Mr. ALTGENS- I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had
prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it
happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nellie Connally in her handwritten notes, written only several days
after the assassination, clearly states that at the time of the third
shot, JBC was down in her lap and that she was bent over, protecting/
covering him, when the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot blew cerebral tissue,
etc; from the head of JFK, and that this tissue was blown forward all
over them (Nellie & JBC)
I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced
impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that loud a
sound; it made a very, very strong sound.
Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior
of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain
tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little
finger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Secret Service as well as the FBI determined that impact of the
third/last/final shot occurred some 30-feet past the second shot
impact point at Z313/aka Stationing 4+63.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
And, the impact point for the third shot was some 30-feet farther down
Elm St., which impact location places the point at approximately 15
feet from where James Altgens was standing, down, directly prior to
the second yellow curb mark.
Of course, "Tom" has not attempted to hide this little known fact
under the testimony of Ronald Simmons:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?
Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map
which were given to us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you
myself?
Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed
that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The
distances are very close, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who may be unfamiliar with exactly a few things operated:
The testimony of Ronald Simmons was taken in conjunction with the
questioning of FBI Agent Robert Frazier on Tuesday, March 31, 1964.
The WC did not complete their re-enactment of the assassination until
May of 1964.
Therefore, a "prudent" persons would ask the question as to exactly
how it was that the WC/aka Melvin Eisenberg was so familiar with the
facts that he knew that the "distances" on the survey plat were
incorrect, and could give Ronald Simmons the reportedly correct
distances.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless:
Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5,
1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?
Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the
employees in my office.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed
surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book
Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show
the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the
truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144b.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now! For those persons who, as the TV show frequently demonstrates
"Are not smarter than a Fifth Grader".
That third/last impact point, as demonstrated on the downward slope
drawings, happens to be a slope distance of 297 feet from the sixth
floor window of the TSDB, and which impact point lands at stationing
4+95, directly in front of where James Altgens was standing, down Elm
St., just prior to the second yellow mark on the curb of Elm St.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
On those plats the second shot is not at Z-313.
Nonsense.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>