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
Brokedad
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11023&view=find...
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
Actually!
It was posted by an individual who has actually conducted research
into the subject matter, as opposed to merely reading (& obviously
believing) Posner, the WC, and or VB's thesis on repeated hearsay;
half-truth; innuendo; and just plain ole everday BS.
Now, as soon as Mr. Von "Pain" can demonstrate exactly how much true
research he has done into the subject matter, perhaps those on either
side of the fence (CT and/or LN) will give him the respect and
credence which he seeks.
Gil Jesus
Now ask him why he's trashing the writer in THIS newsgroup and not in
the Education Forum.
Typical low-life "stab-you-in-the-back-without-you-knowing-so-you-
can't-respond" type of M.O.
And typical for Von Pinhead and the rest of the trolls.
How much research can he do when his nose is always up Bugliosi's
ass ?
PS: He also likes to link to past postings of his as "evidence".
David Von Pein
Actually....! You are full of bullshit!
That previously-mentioned post was posted by a rabid CTer (Mr. Purvis)
who knew he was snipping vital info that was being provided to the WC
by Dr. James J. Humes.
The CTer in question deliberately cut Humes' words off in mid-
paragraph, and also deliberately skipped a hugely-important section of
Humes' testimony dealing with the "second defect" on John F. Kennedy's
coat.
But, being the conspiracy-loving kooks you kooks are, I guess such
deliberate misrepresentation and deception are merely par for the
everyday course and acceptable behavior.
After all...what else do you kooks have but deliberate
misrepresentation of the evidence? You sure as hell don't have any
bullets.
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 Kook 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?
Brokedad
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
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
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.
aeffects
my-oh-my you get to gettin with everyone Davey, don'tcha? Now, is it
or is it not true your Dave Reitzes? Curious minds want to know...
David Von Pein
You have a "mind", DH? Could have fooled me.
Walt
> You have a "mind", DH? Could have fooled me.
Yer gonna hafta work harder Von Pea Brain...or change yer tactics...
cuz yer not winning any converts to yer side.
Most folks who lurk her know that you are full of B.S..... and a shill
for perfesser Mc Dumbdumb. Most intelligent people who have studied
the records and compared them to the Warren Report can see that the
warren report is a crock. Try as you will you are not going to sway
anybody to your side with your insulting tactics.
Walt
Brokedad
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1966
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.
David Von Pein
THe above comment is coming straight from the insane lips of a man-
kook who actually thinks John Kennedy was shot in the throat from the
front at Zapruder Frame #161.
And yet *I'm* the one who is supposedly "full of B.S.", folks.
You cannot beat that for irony. Not with a foot-long stick could you
beat that for classic pot/kettle irony.
Brokedad
> Holy hell. What a bunch of chaff-happy kooks. Amazing.
>
> I'm wondering if Mr. Purvis has found just ONE other person on the
> face of the globe who agrees with him about his "2 Head Shots From The
> REAR" theory?
>
> Even when wading through all the kooks at this forum, plus Lancer,
> plus Simkin's "Education" forum....I'm guessing you won't find ONE
> solitary person in any of those Internet locations who accepts Purvis'
> nonsense as the truth re. the events of November 22nd.
>
> Well...at least "The Purv" knows the "Real Truth". Thank goodness
> somebody does, huh?
>
> I'm also wondering where Tom's major truth-cracking book is on the
> case? Anybody seen that yet? And I wonder why the name "Purvis, Thomas
> H." doesn't appear anywhere at all within the 71-page Index of Vincent
> T. Bugliosi's comprehensive and kook-bashing 2,800+-page publication
> "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"?
>
> Gee, every kook this side of David Lifton, Judyth Baker, and Joe
> O'Donnell gets SOME air time in VB's comprehensive masterpiece. I
> wonder where "The Purv" is?
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1968
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.
David Von Pein
I'm wondering if Mr. Purvis has found just ONE other person on the
face of the globe who agrees with him about his "2 Head Shots From The
REAR" theory?
Even when wading through all the kooks at this forum, plus Lancer,
plus Simkin's "Education" forum....I'm guessing you won't find ONE
solitary person in any of those Internet locations who accepts Purvis'
nonsense as the truth re. the events of November 22nd.
Well...at least "The Purv" knows the "Real Truth". Thank goodness
somebody does, huh?
I'm also wondering where Tom's major truth-cracking book is on the
case? Anybody seen that yet? And I wonder why the name "Purvis, Thomas
H." doesn't appear anywhere at all within the 71-page Index of Vincent
T. Bugliosi's comprehensive and kook-bashing 2,800+-page publication
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"?
Gee, every kook this side of David Lifton, Judyth Baker, and Joe
O'Donnell gets SOME air time in VB's comprehensive masterpiece. I
wonder where "The Purv" is?
BTW, Brokedad....do you actually believe that JFK was struck TWICE in
the head -- both times FROM BEHIND FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE?
If you do, you must be the first. Because no CTer (or LNer) I've ever
encountered believes in anything close to The Purv's idiocy. Zero.
But keep propping up Purvis' ultra-kooky theory if that's your bag,
even though it's total nonsense, and even though you probably don't
agree with it yourself.
No wonder you're "Broke", "Dad".
Brokedad
With one son in Law School and another tearing up vehicles faster than
I can affored to purchase them, then in all probability I will remain
"BrokeDad" for some length of time.
Add to that about $52,000.00 in damn/pond construction in order that
my aging father could see ponds and lakes constructed on our property
prior to his death, and it does not take long to go through a little
cash.
Much better than being referenced as "Dumb Ass" who fell for "THE SHOT
THAT MISSED" as exposed by the WC/Posner/and of course Mr. Von Pein!
In event you ever develop the capability for seperate and independent
thought process, coupled with proper research metholodogy, just
perhaps you may accidently stumble onto actual factual knowledge.
Meanwhile, merely because a coat was introduced into evidence with a
"memorandum" attached, is not sufficent proof to proceed as if fact,
that the second hole in the coat of JFK is as a result of some
hypothetical comparison testing.
Which, had you bothered to find out, never transpired!
Last time that I checked, FBI Agent Frazier was still living! So, why
not give him a call and see if he can tell you factually where this
information actually came from.
Might also ask him about our (mine & his) long ago conversations
relative to this subject.
It is truly sad when someone has to inform a supposedly "Researcher"
as to the proper means and methods for conducting actual research!
Keep em coming there Mr. "DA"!
You quite obviously know so little about the facts of the
assassination that it is not much more than childs play to demonstrate
exactly how little you actually know.
Brokedad
>
> - 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.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/874c2c36978b0cee
>>> "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.
Ben Holmes
says...
Sadly, this is not true.
He once scored 2 points above the minimum required for Sharpshooter, but that
was the best score he ever recorded.
LHO never fired Expert, indeed; never came close to it.
David Von Pein
I guess "BrokeDad" IS Mr. Purvis. If not, you guys are twins....i.e.,
"Twins Of Unsupportable Idiocy".
And it's even sadder to see people like Thomas P., who think they
possess these terrific skills as "researchers", when they possess
nothing more than a very fertile imagination (and a chip on their
shoulder as big as the state of Texas; Tom certainly seems to possess
the latter, for sure, via the few exchanges I've had with that kook to
date).
Anyway, Thomas P. positively possesses no provable EVIDENCE to back up
his insane "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" theory. On that, I think we
can ALL agree (even traditional style CTers, as well as every LNer in
existence).
David Von Pein
And Mr. Purvis wasn't saying that Oswald ever did score in the
"Expert" class in the Marines.
Here we have Ben-Kook misrepresenting the facts of what someone else
said (just like he does with the WC on a daily basis it seems).
T. Purvis said this (which Ben conveniently snipped in mid-
sentence)....
>>>"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."<<<
I sure hate siding with Tom P. here; but, then too, it's always much
more fun to bash a Super-Mega-Kook like Ben H. whenever possible.
Brokedad
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/874c2c36978b...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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."
This comment happens to be for Mr. Von "Pain" as well as a few others
to think on.
Those who wear blinders and/or develop complete tunnel-vision, often
fail to recognize that there are far more reasons for telling lies/mis-
representing the truth, then those with limited though potential such
as Mr. Von "Pain" could ever recognize or realize.
And, for the record, those few whom I have entrusted with other
aspects, have also been provided with the reason.
Not that they too fully believe or accept it at this point in time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAH! Now, Mr. Von "Pain" is Psycic in that he knows what I think.
In actuality, the autopsy surgeons, in my determination, made another
mistake. A simple human error!
In fact, with all of his ranting and ravings, Mr. Von "Pain" knows
absolutely nothing about what Mr. Purvis thinks.
The simple fact being that I discussed with Dr. Boswell on multiple
occassions that evidence which, in my, as well as many more qualified
than myself, upon full review of all the now known evidence, had
clearly established that JFK was in fact struck in the head, from the
rear, by two separate shots.
Dr. Boswell and I had quite clear, open, and honest dealings and
conversations with one another, and in that respect I personally never
made any attempt to "blindside" him with my interpretations of the
evidence.
As a matter of fact, my very first letters to Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell;
and Dr. Finck; clearly stated that I was fully aware that they had, to
the best of their understanding, always stated the facts and truths in
this matter.
So! It would thus appear that Mr. Von "Pain" is again quite incorrect
in his assumptions.
Which is of course nothing new!
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f66ff0bca6d881f0
>>> "I don't agree with his {Thomas H. Purvis'} theory, but it is not in direct opposition to the autopsy report." <<<
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.
aeffects
Von Pein, er Reitzes? Develop caability for anything? Nah, that will
NEVER happen. The dolt has to much invested in the SBT and the Z-film,
not to mention, hawking Buglisoi nonsense on the internet .....
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/73cfedcd3a081c4e
>>> "Purvis' impression is more in line with the {autopsy} 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." <<<
Mr. 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."
Brokedad
>
> "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
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11050&pid=120192&st=0&#entry120192
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
========================================================================================
Thomas H. Purvis says:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Von "Pain"----------------------INCOMING, RUN FOR COVER!
========================================================================================
Mr. Von Pein!
The next time that you are feeling "spunky", and are 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.
The trouble being, you demonstrated lack of ability to differentiate
exactly what part/portions of their research is and is not factual.
I had a "dumb parrot" once, who could also repeat most
anything.--------Killed him as the stupidity which emitted from his
mouth was far more than I could withstand.
David Von Pein
<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
aeffects
you need a case first Dave, all this nonsense ain't gonna work --
hasn't for 40 years now, wake up dufus! BTW, You
Dave Reitzes, why are you running form the question?
aeffects
> >>> "Mr. Von Pein -- The next time that you are feeling "spunky", and are 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):
all this bandwidth for what? LMFAO
[...]
Brokedad
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, has some form of learning
disability in which he 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".
That you are quite obviously too dense to recognize this is not my
problem!
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 and/or ignorant of the facts 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.
P.S. I am too old to give a rats ass about the few spelling errors
David Von Pein
Yeah, I thought so too Tom. (With Tom P. playing the part of the
"child" --- aka: the person/child who is willing to toss aside every
official agency and their associated "ONE SHOT TO THE HEAD" reports
and conclusions re. the wounding and killing of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy on Elm St. in Nov. 1963 in order to prop up his singular
theory regarding the murder of said President.)
BTW, what Secret Service and/or FBI Report exists that says John
Kennedy was shot TWICE in the head from behind? (I must've missed
those official SS & FBI documents stating such a thing that nobody
else seems to know about....or believe.)
But...since Thomas Purvis says that JFK had TWO holes of entry in the
back of his cranium, I guess we'll just have to accept it as fact.*
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7eee27e4f3256dde
* = Despite the fact that all 40 of the people referred to in the
above-mentioned Forum message (plus many other people that I didn't
bother to mention--like Wecht and Ebersole and Stringer and gobs of
additional Bethesda people and HSCA/WC lawyers and counsel members)
have never once claimed there were TWO wounds of entry in JFK's head.
And, of course, none of the autopsy pictures or X-rays show this
SECOND entry hole either. But, since The Purv-man says it's there --
it MUST be there. Go figure.
~shrug~
As can be seen folks -- Kooks can come in all shapes and sizes. And
from both sides of the "CT / LN" fence as well.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6c556eae175c6992
(I'm excising all the rest of Mr. Purvis' silly technical and
subjective bullshit re. President Kennedy's wounds, etc.; the above-
linked Purv-written nonsense plus a half-dollar might get you a Dr.
Pepper from the Book Depository's first-floor soda-pop machine. But,
then again, it'll probably only give a reasonable person--including
the 40 previously-mentioned individuals--a very large headache.)
David R. Von Pein
Vice-President: "Battlers of Kooks, Inc." (The President of the
company is Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq., of Los Angeles, California.)
aeffects
> >>> "For your information, this happens to be somewhat like "child's play"!" <<<
>
> Yeah, I thought so too Tom. (With Tom P. playing the part of the
> "child" --- aka: the person/child who is willing to toss aside every
> official agency and their associated "ONE SHOT TO THE HEAD" reports
> and conclusions re. the wounding and killing of John Fitzgerald
> Kennedy on Elm St. in Nov. 1963 in order to prop up his singular
> theory regarding the murder of said President.)
you have NO idea who your talking to, you fucking idiot! Your turning
into a *supremeo dolt*
<snip the ridiculous Nutter nonsense>
David Von Pein
But thanks oh so much for your super-insightful wisdom, as you seem to
want to try to prop up some of Purvis' nonsense for some reason. (YOU
certainly don't believe the junk Purvis promotes any more than I do.)
I guess you just felt like jumping DVP's case for no good reason at
all (as per usual). Right, kook?
David Von Pein
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/
DVP SAID: "And, of course, none of the autopsy pictures or X-rays show
this SECOND entry hole {in the back of President Kennedy's head}
either. But, since The Purv-man says it's there - it MUST be there. Go
figure."
TOM PURVIS SAID: "You can rest assured that it is there!"
DVP NOW SAYS: Oh, sure it is. Of course. Nobody else but Thomas H.
Purvman can see it though. Nice.
TOM: "Finding the "Second" impact penetration through the skull of JFK
requires not only reading comprehension, but a little experience in
radiographic interpretation as well. Both of which you appear to be
severely lacking in."
DVP: And apparently ALL SEVENTEEN pathologists who examined either the
actual body of President Kennedy or the photos showing the back of
JFK's head evidently ALL lacked those skills you mentioned, too, huh?
Because ALL 17 of those doctors missed seeing this "second" entry hole
in the back of the head too. Nice.
I wonder what other things Tom sees that nobody else on Earth can see?
(Maybe I shouldn't have asked that last question....because now he'll
probably feel obligated to tell us. And, as you may already know, my
urinary bladder is very small and weak.)
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11050&view=findpost&p=120622
THOMAS "I'LL 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")." <<<
DAVID R. VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
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.
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11050&view=findpost&p=120622
THOMAS H. PURVIS SAID:
>>> "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 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....including the following two
doctors (Petty and Humes):
======================================
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 TV Docu-Trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey
Oswald") -- "What was the conclusion your panel came to as to how many
bullets struck the President, their point of entry, and the path they
took through the President's body?"
DR. CHARLES PETTY (one of 9 forensic pathologists who served on the
Forensic Pathology Panel for the HSCA) -- "My conclusion, and the
conclusion of the panel, was that the President was struck by two
bullets -- one entering the right-upper back and exiting in the front
of the neck; the other entering the right back of the head, and
exiting what we call the right-frontal area, that is the front and
side of the head."
BUGLIOSI -- "Is there any doubt in your mind, Doctor, whatsoever that
both bullets that struck the President came from the rear and no
bullets struck him from the front?"
PETTY -- "None whatsoever."
BUGLIOSI -- "Let me ask you this, Dr. Petty .... assuming the
President HAD been struck by a bullet from the front -- make that
assumption -- could the transference of momentum from that bullet have
thrown the President backward as is shown in frames 315 to 320 of the
Zapruder Film?"
PETTY -- "No sir, not in my opinion."
BUGLIOSI -- "And why is that?"
PETTY -- "Because the head is too heavy. There's too much muscular
resistance to movement."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the killings that people see on television and in the
movies, which is the only type of killings most people ever see, where
the person struck by the bullet very frequently, visibly, and
dramatically is propelled backward by the force of the bullet --
that's not what actually happens in life when a bullet hits a human
being?"
PETTY -- "No, of course not."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
======================================
======================================
In his first interview since his 1964 Warren Commission testimony,
JFK's primary autopsy physician, Dr. James J. Humes, vividly describes
President Kennedy's head wounds to Dan Rather and the CBS audience:
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?"
HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the
right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
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?"
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?"
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?"
HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
======================================
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 (mostly) 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
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
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
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.)
aeffects
Dave Reitzes.....?
David Von Pein
to the date of 11/22/63....right Healy-Kook? Right.
Examples........
The Z-Film....A fake.
Abe Zapruder....not even filming (hence, Abe's a conspirator, because
he must have lied like a dog afterward).
Marilyn Sitzman...not on the pedestal either. She's a lousy liar too.
God knows how many other DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA, and SS people are rotten
liars for Healy to have to wade through too.
And DVP is evidently supposedly Dave Reitzes. More liars for Healy to
contend with. Or is it just ONE liar here and not two? Only the kook
can know for sure. (And maybe his hairdresser too.)
Life's not easy for kooks like David G. Healy. It must be tough to
know what is real and what is faked, huh Mr. Kook?*
* = No, wait...it's not hard for Healy at all -- because he'll just
call EVERYTHING "fake" and give everything and everybody the
"Nothing's What It Seems To Be" treatment.
Good solution. (If you reside in Kookville.)
Spitefully yours,
DVP (Or is it DR?)