Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 "I would love to see proof of alteration, but it doesn't seem to exist because every "fact" that I see presented has a counter." Kathy Beckett Perhaps, not unlike the "Unknown Unknowns", one has actually seen the proof, yet did not, for whatever reason, recognize what they had seen! But then again, this could also be one of those "Known Unknowns" as one knows that they have seen it, yet merely do not know what they saw. Not to mention the WHY? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) "I would love to see proof of alteration, but it doesn't seem to exist because every "fact" that I see presented has a counter."Kathy Beckett Perhaps, not unlike the "Unknown Unknowns", one has actually seen the proof, yet did not, for whatever reason, recognize what they had seen! But then again, this could also be one of those "Known Unknowns" as one knows that they have seen it, yet merely do not know what they saw. Not to mention the WHY? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Or it could just be nothing more than kooks talking in riddles so to try and make things appear nmore complicated than they really are. Bill Miller Edited March 14, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 "I would love to see proof of alteration, but it doesn't seem to exist because every "fact" that I see presented has a counter."Kathy Beckett Perhaps, not unlike the "Unknown Unknowns", one has actually seen the proof, yet did not, for whatever reason, recognize what they had seen! But then again, this could also be one of those "Known Unknowns" as one knows that they have seen it, yet merely do not know what they saw. Not to mention the WHY? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Or it could just be nothing more than kooks talking in riddles so to try and make things appear nmore complicated than they really are. Bill Miller Well now! Since I have neither wasted any time chasing figments of the imagination such as "Badgeman"; nor do I believe in other such mythological beings hiding throughout Dealey Plaza, perhaps it will be best to allow the passage of time and history to determine exactly who is the "Kook". Personally, in my own opinion, anyone who has fallen for the BS of the "Blood Sputter" as well as the late/great Al Carrier nonsense, will not rate too highly on the final scale of reliable thought processing. Meanwhile! I would suppose if one could not observe the "known" within the Z255 photo, then they most probably will not see it here either. Especially since it it is also absent here as well! http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z212.jpg At times, what one does not see can be almost as informative as what one actually does see. Perhaps it can be seen here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0304b.htm NOPE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Thom, Since you have it all pretty much figured out, can you tell me what the sequence of shots were? I just read a SS agent's report from the third car back, who says he heard a firecracker sound and reponded to it, drawing gun and looking at "the boss," when he heard a second shot and watched it hit the boss in the back, four inches below the colar line, shortly after which he heard a third shot and the right side of head being blow away. We should at least be able to figure out the sequence of shots. One of the reasons the Secret Service began the reconsctruction of the assassination was to determine this. Does the syronization of the acoustical evidence with the Zapruder film assist in this? You say there were three shots and three hits right? Thanks, Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Is the normal human reaction to hearing a 'firedracker' to look at the shot, the next shot, and then the next hitting ones 'boss', with an amazing reaction speed, ready for action, and not once look to where the shots were coming from? The INSTINCTIVE response to a threat is to turn towards where the senses percieve it to come from. Is that so Tom? (I haven't been in a war but I've heard the odd backfire now and then.) There were other firecrackers going off this day. Was he as quick on the draw and a do-nothing then as well? I wonder who told him to say all that? Sounds like clumsy bla-de-bla to me. (Perhaps others had the job of turning?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) Thom, Since you have it all pretty much figured out, can you tell me what the sequence of shots were? I just read a SS agent's report from the third car back, who says he heard a firecracker sound and reponded to it, drawing gun and looking at "the boss," when he heard a second shot and watched it hit the boss in the back, four inches below the colar line, shortly after which he heard a third shot and the right side of head being blow away. We should at least be able to figure out the sequence of shots. One of the reasons the Secret Service began the reconsctruction of the assassination was to determine this. Does the syronization of the acoustical evidence with the Zapruder film assist in this? You say there were three shots and three hits right? "Since you have it all pretty much figured out, can you tell me what the sequence of shots were?" Thanks, Bill Kelly Done! Multiple times on this forum. Bang------------------------------------------------------Bang-------------------Bang Z204/206-----------------------------------------------Z312/313--------------Z349/350 "I just read a SS agent's report from the third car back, who says he heard a firecracker sound and reponded to it, drawing gun and looking at "the boss," when he heard a second shot and watched it hit the boss in the back, four inches below the colar line, shortly after which he heard a third shot and the right side of head being blow away. " In event that one reads the "typewritten" report purportedly of SS Agent Glen Bennett (who was in the SS followup Cadillac vehicle directly behind the Presidential Limousinee), then this statement is found. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-benne.htm HOWEVER! In event one will read the handwritten notes of SS Agent Glen Bennett which were written during the actual flight back to Bethesda, they will find that it states: "At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head." And, in that, one has the Z204/206 impact as well as the Z312/313 impact. (Note: At the time of the first shot, the SS followup vehicle was within the "cone" of sound disruption which the tree limbs'leaves created, thus actually baffling the "crack" of the rifle into the firecracker sound which SS Agent Bennet heard. "We should at least be able to figure out the sequence of shots." Do not know about "we"! However, the SS easily did, as did the FBI. And I merely figured out what they had long ago known before the WC stepped in to straighten us all out with the misconceptions which the SS and FBI purportedly gave us. "Does the syronization of the acoustical evidence with the Zapruder film assist in this?" Nope! Just as wasting a large amount of the HSCA budget on the "acoustical evidence" did not resolve much of anything either. Nevertheless, in addition to bankrupting the HSCA investigation, it did serve the purpose of opening up another relatively large "rabbit hole" for many to plunge into. "You say there were three shots and three hits right?" Yep! Which in and of itself, has little value, as it is what the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence say that actually has validity. P.S. The SS as well as the FBI also state 3-shots and 3-hits, in event that has any value. Boy oh boy is that difficult to resolve. Three shots---Three hits------no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and no CE399 SBT theory which required one bullet to create multiple wounds in two seperate and non-aligned personnel. About the only thing on this subject matter which even has a difficulty rating above a +5, is resolving all of the neat little things which Specter; Shaneyfelt; Hoover; & Company managed to pull off which has, in addition to pulling massive amounts of wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting, also sent multitudes chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza. Gotta love anyone who could accomplish such! P.P.S. Might want to actually follow through on your "NANA" as you were actually getting warm there! P.P.P.S. No! It is most unlikely that SS Agent Glen Bennet could observe a 6.5mm projectile travelling at some 1,800(+)fps. However, CE399/aka the first shot, struck with a considerably diminished impact velocity for those reasons as previously stated. Which is of course also the reason that the bullet only penetrated a short distance into the upper back of JFK. A 6.5mm bullet which is travelling at only 600fps (+/-) or so, and happens to be tumbling end-over-end, is not that difficult to see. Edited March 15, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 Is the normal human reaction to hearing a 'firedracker' to look at the shot, the next shot, and then the next hitting ones 'boss', with an amazing reaction speed, ready for action, and not once look to where the shots were coming from? The INSTINCTIVE response to a threat is to turn towards where the senses percieve it to come from. Is that so Tom? (I haven't been in a war but I've heard the odd backfire now and then.) There were other firecrackers going off this day. Was he as quick on the draw and a do-nothing then as well? I wonder who told him to say all that? Sounds like clumsy bla-de-bla to me. (Perhaps others had the job of turning?) John! First off, the subject matter of this topic is actually about Z-film alteration, and I would not want Kathy to become bored and not keep an open mind in that regards. And no! It is not about "reactions" as seen with in the Z-film, as "reactions" are an interpretive and highly speculative topic. As regards firecrackers! The answer is yes! Firecrackers had been set off during the course of the parade, and in that regards one must think "Pavlov's Dog". Conditioned reflex! So, whether by design of someone (who knew not what their purpose served) setting off firecrackers, or merely the actions of some of the Dallas dummies, the setting off of firecrackers along the parade route would have easily "conditioned" the SS into a somewhat "non-reactive" posture. "The INSTINCTIVE response to a threat is to turn towards where the senses percieve it to come from. Is that so Tom? (I haven't been in a war but I've heard the odd backfire now and then.)" Even in an "non-urban" environment, sound which emits from a higher altitude is difficult to pinpoint in location unless one happens to have one ear turned directly towards an un-interrupted line-of-sight towards the source of the sound. When that sound happens to have been "baffled" through the limbs and leaves of a live oak tree, this would make it practically impossible to pinpoint in regards to it's source. In addition to the simple fact of the actual design and operation of the ears and the ear lobes which channel sounds from the front into the ear canal. NOT sounds from the rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) Done! Multiple times on this forum. Bang-------------------5.85 seconds--------------------Bang------1.9/2.0 seconds----Bang Z204/206-----------------------------------------------Z312/313----------------------Z349/350 Shot#1. Entered back of JFK (base-first attitude), striking right transverse process of C7 vertebrae, which sheared small 0.9grain/ 4.5mm width lead protrusion from base of bullet. (Missing fragment in CE840). Small lead protrusion exited anterior throat of JFK and was later recovered from the left rear floor of the Presidential Limo. Lead fragment was removed from the FBI Laboratory by William Sullivan. Shot#2./aka Z313 impact Struck JFK in the high rear (cowlick) area of the rear of the skull. Bullet traversed through the upper lobes of the brain and severely fragmented due primarily to the manner in which it exited the skull. Fragments of the bullet flew forward at varying velocities based on at which point the fragment was seperated from the primary mass. Fragments went forward to the windshield/molding; as well as a fragment striking JBC in the right wrist as he held his right arm out. The "Tague" impact is a result of this shot as no other bullet fragmented. Shot#3. aka/directly in front of James Altgens impact. Penetrated through the coat of JFK at a point just below the lower edge of the coat collar, exited the coat on an oblique angle to strike JFK in the rear of the head at the lower edge of the hairline, "tunnelled" through the soft tissues at the rear of the base of the head to strike the skull in the EOP region. Penetrated through the mid-brain to exit in the vicinity of the frontal lobe of the skull and then continued onward on a downward angle to strike JBC in the right rear shoulder as he lay across the open area of the jump seats with his head in Nellie's lap and his back and shoulder exposed in the void area between the jump seats. Penetrated through JBC's chest to exit and then enter the left inner thigh. 3-Shots/3-Hits, and the WC's lie in regards to some mythological "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". Edited March 15, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 [name=Thomas H. Purvis' date='Mar 15 2009, 03:49 AM' post='164080]John! First off, the subject matter of this topic is actually about Z-film alteration, and I would not want Kathy to become bored and not keep an open mind in that regards. And no! It is not about "reactions" as seen with in the Z-film, as "reactions" are an interpretive and highly speculative topic. As regards firecrackers! The answer is yes! Firecrackers had been set off during the course of the parade, and in that regards one must think "Pavlov's Dog". Conditioned reflex! So, whether by design of someone (who knew not what their purpose served) setting off firecrackers, or merely the actions of some of the Dallas dummies, the setting off of firecrackers along the parade route would have easily "conditioned" the SS into a somewhat "non-reactive" posture. Purvis ... the things you write remind me of the dialog taken from the movie 'A Beautiful Mind'. Are you familiar with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 [name=Thomas H. Purvis' date='Mar 15 2009, 03:49 AM' post='164080]John! First off, the subject matter of this topic is actually about Z-film alteration, and I would not want Kathy to become bored and not keep an open mind in that regards. And no! It is not about "reactions" as seen with in the Z-film, as "reactions" are an interpretive and highly speculative topic. As regards firecrackers! The answer is yes! Firecrackers had been set off during the course of the parade, and in that regards one must think "Pavlov's Dog". Conditioned reflex! So, whether by design of someone (who knew not what their purpose served) setting off firecrackers, or merely the actions of some of the Dallas dummies, the setting off of firecrackers along the parade route would have easily "conditioned" the SS into a somewhat "non-reactive" posture. Purvis ... the things you write remind me of the dialog taken from the movie 'A Beautiful Mind'. Are you familiar with it? Quite familiar! Just as I am also familiar with some of the idiots on this forum who profess great abilities in study and evaluation of the photographic evidence yet do not even have sufficient qualifications and capabilities to resolve that the WC Altgens re-enactment photo was not even taken from the same alignment as was the original Altgens photograph. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm Not to mention a host of other idiotic misconceptions in regards to their perceived abilities do to other idiots who have blown smoke up their rectal orifice. Go chase "Badgeman" Miller and leave evaluation of the evidence to those who have no interest in mythological creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 Although the "Moorman in the Street" v. "Moorman in the Grass" issue is pretty much a "no-brainer", it has nevertheless served someone well in it's mis-direction and mis-application of deductive reasoning. Just as has the "Badgeman" issue in regards to the photograph. Too bad that such extended efforts are devoted to having to disprove an asinine theory and concept when such cerebral capacity could be far better utilized in resolving the truly important issues of the assassination and the manipulations of ALL evidence. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gary: The idea to do a Dealey Plaza test was Crawley’s, for a reasonable question to him was whether or not her model camera could capture a clear enough image. According to Crawley, Kodak’s Polaroid film was actually 120 size film with the same physical characteristics. After the test, he was satisfied that the camera was capable of capturing a clear enough image to reveal details of a person at the Badge Man location. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "After the test, he was satisfied that the camera was capable of capturing a clear enough image to reveal details" +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And, in that regards, it (the testing) served it's purpose well. Therefore, had one not been highly mis-directed into searching for mythological beings, they just may have realized why something within the photograph needed to be "slightly obscurred". Now! If one could merely ascertain exactly what (all) that fingerprint is obscuring. (Doubting) Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 "First we have THREE versions of the Moorman without the thumbprint. Those don't work for you guys?" Suprisingly enough, I was aware of the versions which do not contain the thumbprint. Nevertheless, not unlike: Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film---- Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study. Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes. Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed? Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334. As well as: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0017a.htm It served it's given purpose at the time. So, in that regards, what purpose did NOT showing us any frames of the Z-film past the Z334 point serve??????? What purpose did NOT showing us Z208 through Z211 at the time serve????????? =========================================================================== "The Moorman alteration relates to the LOS lessons he was giving us with regards to Muchmore and Bond. imo" Nice guess, but NOPE! And actually, it served no less than two seperate and distinctive functions, either of which, provided they hold up to scrutiny, could ultimately lead to a conclusion of film tampering. Not unlike this photo as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Done! Multiple times on this forum.Bang-------------------5.85 seconds--------------------Bang------1.9/2.0 seconds----Bang Z204/206-----------------------------------------------Z312/313----------------------Z349/350 Shot#1. Entered back of JFK (base-first attitude), striking right transverse process of C7 vertebrae, which sheared small 0.9grain/ 4.5mm width lead protrusion from base of bullet. (Missing fragment in CE840). Small lead protrusion exited anterior throat of JFK and was later recovered from the left rear floor of the Presidential Limo. Lead fragment was removed from the FBI Laboratory by William Sullivan. Shot#2./aka Z313 impact Struck JFK in the high rear (cowlick) area of the rear of the skull. Bullet traversed through the upper lobes of the brain and severely fragmented due primarily to the manner in which it exited the skull. Fragments of the bullet flew forward at varying velocities based on at which point the fragment was seperated from the primary mass. Fragments went forward to the windshield/molding; as well as a fragment striking JBC in the right wrist as he held his right arm out. The "Tague" impact is a result of this shot as no other bullet fragmented. Shot#3. aka/directly in front of James Altgens impact. Penetrated through the coat of JFK at a point just below the lower edge of the coat collar, exited the coat on an oblique angle to strike JFK in the rear of the head at the lower edge of the hairline, "tunnelled" through the soft tissues at the rear of the base of the head to strike the skull in the EOP region. Penetrated through the mid-brain to exit in the vicinity of the frontal lobe of the skull and then continued onward on a downward angle to strike JBC in the right rear shoulder as he lay across the open area of the jump seats with his head in Nellie's lap and his back and shoulder exposed in the void area between the jump seats. Penetrated through JBC's chest to exit and then enter the left inner thigh. 3-Shots/3-Hits, and the WC's lie in regards to some mythological "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". Thom, So you totally ignore the observations of SS Agent Bennett when he wrote in his report: ...About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. FIRST SHOT GETS HIS ATTENTION AND HE LOOKS AT THE BOSS I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. HE SEES SECOND SHOT HIT THE BOSS'S BACK A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.... WHAT HE CALLS THE SECOND SHOT IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD SHOT HE MENTIONS HITS THE BOSS IN THE HEAD. And in his handwritten notes: In event one will read the handwritten notes of SS Agent Glen Bennett which were written during the actual flight back to Bethesda, they will find that it states: "At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head." I THINK WHEN HE REFERES TO THE "SECOND SHOT" HE IS IMPLYING THAT THE SECOND AND THE THIRD SHOTS WERE CLOSE TOGETHER, LIKE ALMOST ALL OF THE EARWITNESSES SAID. IF YOU ARE TO BELIEVE BENNETT, THEN THE SEQUENCE OF SHOTS WAS FIRST SHOT HIT CONNALLY/ OR MISSED - SECOND SHOT HIT JFK IN BACK AND THIRD SHOT WAS THE HEAD SHOT. THAT'S HOW I READ BENNETT. IS GLENN BENNETT STILL ALIVE? DOES ANYONE KNOW IF VINCE TALKED TO HIM? I CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THERE WAS NO MISSED SHOT, AND THAT TAGUE WAS HIT BY A FRAGMENT RICKOCHET, BUT THE SEQUENCE OF SHOTS THAT BENNETT HEARD AND SAW, SEEMS TO IMPLY A FIRST SHOT GOT HIS ATTENTION, SECOND SHOT HIT THE BACK AND THE THIRD SHOT, QUICKLY FOLLOWING THE SECOND, HIT THE HEAD. DON'T MEAN TO SHOUT, JUST TO DIFFERENCIATE ME FROM THOM AND BENNETT. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Well, the normally predictable alteration debate takes a turn into the Twilight Zone with the appearance of Tom Purvis. This guy is as long winded as he is incomprehensible. Really, folks, how do you take seriously someone who believes Oswald fired all the shots with the defective Carcano, dismisses the notion of a missed shot, claims the last shot was fired at Z350!, claims the Warren Commission engaged in a "cover up" that apparently was limited to his precious and bizarre shot sequence theory and.... believes in film alteration! Tell us, Tom, in 10,000 words or less- why would anyone have altered film of the assassination, if Oswald did all the shooting? Who altered it? Surely not those "mythological" figures you criticize true reseeachers from "chasing?" What do you think was altered, if you accept the impossible fairy tale of three shots from behind by Oswald? Oh wait, I know.... they edited out your brilliant shot sequence hypothesis. According to you, there is nothing else they could have edited out. Apparently the most important point of the whole assassination, in your eyes, is that the Warren Commission purposefully misidentified a missed shot, and further "covered up" a later third shot because..... Well, there is no rational "because," is there? Why, to make James Tague a bit player in the drama? For Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co., I ask- do you really want this guy on your side in the alterationist debate? To Josiah Thompson, Bill Miller and co., I ask- can you acknowledge that the postings of Purvis bring more embarrassment to legitimate researchers than the wildest alterationist claim? Can alterationists and non-alterationists alike come together at least on this, and call Puvis's ravings what they are- bogus and ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Well, the normally predictable alteration debate takes a turn into the Twilight Zone with the appearance of Tom Purvis. This guy is as long winded as he is incomprehensible. Really, folks, how do you take seriously someone who believes Oswald fired all the shots with the defective Carcano, dismisses the notion of a missed shot, claims the last shot was fired at Z350!, claims the Warren Commission engaged in a "cover up" that apparently was limited to his precious and bizarre shot sequence theory and.... believes in film alteration! Tell us, Tom, in 10,000 words or less- why would anyone have altered film of the assassination, if Oswald did all the shooting? Who altered it? Surely not those "mythological" figures you criticize true reseeachers from "chasing?" What do you think was altered, if you accept the impossible fairy tale of three shots from behind by Oswald? Oh wait, I know.... they edited out your brilliant shot sequence hypothesis. According to you, there is nothing else they could have edited out. Apparently the most important point of the whole assassination, in your eyes, is that the Warren Commission purposefully misidentified a missed shot, and further "covered up" a later third shot because..... Well, there is no rational "because," is there? Why, to make James Tague a bit player in the drama? For Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co., I ask- do you really want this guy on your side in the alterationist debate? To Josiah Thompson, Bill Miller and co., I ask- can you acknowledge that the postings of Purvis bring more embarrassment to legitimate researchers than the wildest alterationist claim? Can alterationists and non-alterationists alike come together at least on this, and call Puvis's ravings what they are- bogus and ridiculous? Purvis is harmless enough because he is a one-trick pony, with endless repetitions, provided nobody takes him seriously. He does possess one bit of genuine important information...an original West survey, and things West told him about it. But for as long as he has been here, he has never shared this information. He is sort of an embarrassment to any side he is on. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now