Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Purvis...I and others pay no attention to you because:

1. You believe the WC got it right. This puts you in with those who are provocateurs or mentally unbalanced.

2. You write long-winded repetitive riddles that you expect people to read through and solve.

3. If you have facts, lay them out simply and briefly, if you expect anybody to pay attention; if you did that,

I might read some of your messages. I don't have time to solve your riddles.

No personal offense intended.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Unless I've missed something, no one else on this forum has really taken Purvis to task for his numerous illogical and confusing posts. No one seems to mind his arrogance or his overwhelming air of self-imortance, which comes through in every word he writes. It honestly amazes me that he commands the least bit of respect here. I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Don, no one will waste a second with you except Wild Bill Miller who is Gary Mack second here.... he of course is trying to paint a good face on everything here for the Dallas City Father's.

In so far as Tom Purvis, I suspect he's forgot more concerning this case than you'll ever know.... so, when it comes to lunacy, I'd keep myself under wraps for a while if I were you. At least till the real *in the know* CT's finally leave this forum. Then you Lone Nut wunderkinds can have your justly deserved lovefest....

btw, Josiah doesn't do autographs.... rumor has it, Miller does! LMAO

David,

Reading this post has convinced me that you're only slightly less of an embarrassment than Purvis is. Do you realize how you discredit anything lucid you might ever say with your absurd labels of "lone nut wunderkinds" directed at people like me? I can somewhat understand your acute paranoia about Bill Miller- you are an avid believer in film alteration so you simply claim anyone who opposes you on that issue is a "lone nutter." I didn't say that such paranoia makes any sense, but at least I can see where it's coming from in his case. As for myself, I don't dismiss the possibility of alteration, but have tried to point out that arguing about it endlessly does nothing but further fracture the critical community. Furthermore, I am a strong supporter of Jack White and Jim Fetzer on most issues. I don't think there is a more passionate believer in conspiracy than myself on this forum.

Now, let's turn to your inexplicable support of Tom Purvis. You castigate Thompson, Miller and now me (who isn't even an anti-alterationist) as "lone nut wunderkinds," when we all believe in conspiracy (at least I think Josiah still does). Yet, in the same breath, you express support for someone who believes Oswald fired all the shots from that sixth floor window. Are you so enthralled with the idea of film alteration that it has taken on a greater importance to you than the identites and locations of the shooters? If you can't forgive Bill Miller and Josiah Thompson for opposing you on this issue, how can you forgive Purvis for accepting every conclusion of the Warren Report?

If you support the incomprehensible ravings of Tom Purvis, you are far closer to a "lone nut wunderkind" than myself, Thompson, Miller or even Craig Lamson. As far as Purvis forgetting more about the assassination than I'll ever know, he has apparently forgotten the basic evidence, so you're at least partially right. I've been researching this case for about 35 years now. I know that what Purvis is saying is absolute nonsense. Assuming you know anything about the evidence yourself, why would you support someone like him? Can you understand why people might just very well suspect you of the same things you accuse others of?

Edited by Don Jeffries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have tried, more than a few times, to point out the lunacy in the posts of Tom Purvis. Each time, I've waited in vain for somone on this forum to back me up. What does this guy have, that otherwise intelligent people can't see through his nonsense? Why do any of you think he has the least bit of credibility?

Consider what he's saying; the Warren Commission "covered up" but all their essential conclusions were right. Oswald did all the shooting, but the films of the assassination were altered. The Carcano was a good weapon, and Oswald was a good shooter. His "research" is absurd, and flies in the face of all the evidence. Why will none of you post a simple "yeah, I totally agree?" I can't be the only one on this forum who feels this way. Purvis fills up entire threads with nonsensical answers to his own incomprehensble ramblings. That alone should annoy everyone.

Josiah, Bill, Barb and other non-alterationists- if you consider Jim Fetzer and Jack White uncredible and embarrassing, what do you think of Purvis? Why don't you blast his ridiculous theories on this forum, the way you blast Fetzer and White? Josiah, aren't you bothered in the least by someone who thnks Oswald did all the shooting (and was a crack shot to boot), but maintains that the Warren Commission was "covering up" nonetheless and also believes the films were altered?

Unless I've missed something, no one else on this forum has really taken Purvis to task for his numerous illogical and confusing posts. No one seems to mind his arrogance or his overwhelming air of self-imortance, which comes through in every word he writes. It honestly amazes me that he commands the least bit of respect here. I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Credit where credit is due!

"Consider what he's saying; the Warren Commission "covered up" but all their essential conclusions were right. Oswald did all the shooting, but the films of the assassination were altered. The Carcano was a good weapon, and Oswald was a good shooter."

Give yourself one "attaboy" for having at least gotten that correct. Which by the way is far more than many others have managed to achieve.

"I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes.""

Simply stated: Anyone who is of the misguided impression that the 6.5mm Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle is a piece of junk, along with the completely erroneous belief that LHO was not an excellent shot, should feel quite childlike.

Since children do not normally possess the adult ability of information/knowledge correlation with deductive reasoning and factual research.

P.S. There are some extremely intelligent* persons who visit this forum, for which I am thankful.

Otherwise, I would most probably go fishing or do some other considerably less mind-taxing event.

*The ability to correlate and comprehend knowledge; evaluate and then apply that knowledge in a scientific manner in order to determine or negate the validity of the knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Unless I've missed something, no one else on this forum has really taken Purvis to task for his numerous illogical and confusing posts. No one seems to mind his arrogance or his overwhelming air of self-imortance, which comes through in every word he writes. It honestly amazes me that he commands the least bit of respect here. I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Don, no one will waste a second with you except Wild Bill Miller who is Gary Mack second here.... he of course is trying to paint a good face on everything here for the Dallas City Father's.

In so far as Tom Purvis, I suspect he's forgot more concerning this case than you'll ever know.... so, when it comes to lunacy, I'd keep myself under wraps for a while if I were you. At least till the real *in the know* CT's finally leave this forum. Then you Lone Nut wunderkinds can have your justly deserved lovefest....

btw, Josiah doesn't do autographs.... rumor has it, Miller does! LMAO

David,

Reading this post has convinced me that you're only slightly less of an embarrassment than Purvis is. Do you realize how you discredit anything lucid you might ever say with your absurd labels of "lone nut wunderkinds" directed at people like me? I can somewhat understand your acute paranoia about Bill Miller- you are an avid believer in film alteration so you simply claim anyone who opposes you on that issue is a "lone nutter." I didn't say that such paranoia makes any sense, but at least I can see where it's coming from in his case. As for myself, I don't dismiss the possibility of alteration, but have tried to point out that arguing about it endlessly does nothing but further fracture the critical community. Furthermore, I am a strong supporter of Jack White and Jim Fetzer on most issues. I don't think there is a more passionate believer in conspiracy than myself on this forum.

Now, let's turn to your inexplicable support of Tom Purvis. You castigate Thompson, Miller and now me (who isn't even an anti-alterationist) as "lone nut wunderkinds," when we all believe in conspiracy (at least I think Josiah still does). Yet, in the same breath, you express support for someone who believes Oswald fired all the shots from that sixth floor window. Are you so enthralled with the idea of film alteration that it has taken on a greater importance to you than the identites and locations of the shooters? If you can't forgive Bill Miller and Josiah Thompson for opposing you on this issue, how can you forgive Purvis for accepting every conclusion of the Warren Report?

If you support the incomprehensible ravings of Tom Purvis, you are far closer to a "lone nut wunderkind" than myself, Thompson, Miller or even Craig Lamson. As far as Purvis forgetting more about the assassination than I'll ever know, he has apparently forgotten the basic evidence, so you're at least partially right. I've been researching this case for about 35 years now. I know that what Purvis is saying is absolute nonsense. Assuming you know anything about the evidence yourself, why would you support someone like him? Can you understand why people might just very well suspect you of the same things you accuse others of?

"I've been researching this case for about 35 years now."

Perhaps you should give consideration to contacting the "Guinness Book Of Records"

After all, Moses only remained "LOST" for forty days and forty nights.

35 years is undoubtedly some form of new World Record!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,

No doubt about it -- Mr. Purvis is the KING of unintended irony.

That this king has no clothes is no secret, however.

Calling him out on a regular basis is a waste of time.

And yes, it does seem strange to be called a "lone nutter" just because

Z-film alterationists have failed to make their case.

Like you, I have respect for the Z-film alterationists on the basis of

their other work -- but get right down to it, the Dealey Plaza films

and photos are "the bedrock evidence in the case."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purvis...I and others pay no attention to you because:

1. You believe the WC got it right. This puts you in with those who are provocateurs or mentally unbalanced.

A. Incorrect! The WC completely lied. There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". And, since I seldom believe those

who initially have lied to me, I was never dumb enough to have fallen for this. Why did you?

B. I initially applied for a "mental" discharge from service. However! Considering that I was safe in the NG, volunteered for active duty, volunteered for Vietnam Service, along with having volunteered for all of those other highly dumb assignments (when viewed in hindsight), it was difficult to put up much of a case that they were not correct in stating that I was quite obviously not too well balanced mentally when I entered service. Application Denied!

2. You write long-winded repetitive riddles that you expect people to read through and solve.

I only expect intelligent persons to resolve the riddles. Much like the WC!

3. If you have facts, lay them out simply and briefly, if you expect anybody to pay attention; if you did that,

I might read some of your messages. I don't have time to solve your riddles.

Sorry Jack! It is not lacking "time" which prevents you from solving either my, or the WC riddles.

It has something to do with lack of ability to solve riddles.

No personal offense intended.

Jack

Only take offense when someone for whom I have respect for their abilities, might make some such statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have tried, more than a few times, to point out the lunacy in the posts of Tom Purvis. Each time, I've waited in vain for someone on this forum to back me up. What does this guy have, that otherwise intelligent people can't see through his nonsense? Why do any of you think he has the least bit of credibility?

Consider what he's saying; the Warren Commission "covered up" but all their essential conclusions were right. Oswald did all the shooting, but the films of the assassination were altered. The Carcano was a good weapon, and Oswald was a good shooter. His "research" is absurd, and flies in the face of all the evidence. Why will none of you post a simple "yeah, I totally agree?" I can't be the only one on this forum who feels this way. Purvis fills up entire threads with nonsensical answers to his own incomprehensible ramblings. That alone should annoy everyone.

Josiah, Bill, Barb and other non-alterations- if you consider Jim Fetzer and Jack White not credible and embarrassing, what do you think of Purvis? Why don't you blast his ridiculous theories on this forum, the way you blast Fetzer and White? Josiah, aren't you bothered in the least by someone who thinks Oswald did all the shooting (and was a crack shot to boot), but maintains that the Warren Commission was "covering up" nonetheless and also believes the films were altered?

Unless I've missed something, no one else on this forum has really taken Purvis to task for his numerous illogical and confusing posts. No one seems to mind his arrogance or his overwhelming air of self-imortance, which comes through in every word he writes. It honestly amazes me that he commands the least bit of respect here. I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Don, those individuals I have spoken to don't put much stock in what Puris post. I can tell you that your observations concerning his views is shared by many. Purvis believes he has the assassination of John F. Kennedy all figured out, but yet he stays on these threads so to repeat the same thing over and over to people who didn't buy it the first dozen times he cited it. I mean think about it ... Who in their right mind who thinks they know so much about the assassination that once they have it figured out ... their next goal is to only repeat it over and over again on a forum such as this.

I wouldn't even be surprised to find that Purvis as an official Maxwell Smart shoe phone. :ice

"Don, those individuals I have spoken to don't put much stock in what Puris post."

One would have to suppose that this includes (primarily) "I are a Scout Sniper" Carrier, and his COS in regards to the Canyon Shoot BS, as well as the completely idiotic claim that by looking at the Z-film one can determine Blood Splatter and only a shot from the front. Despite the multitudes of physical evidence which clearly demonstrate an impact to the rear of the head.

Would this also include those who can see mythological beings (IE: Badgeman) by utilization of the Amazing Carmac" method of crime scene investigation.

Who in their right mind who thinks they know so much about the assassination that once they have it figured out ... their next goal is to only repeat it over and over again on a forum such as this.

Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in the accurate recording of historical events, and not unlike the "whack-a-mole" efforts of a respected and known researcher of fact, does not intend to allow those who attempt to hock assinine theories such as "Badgeman" ; multiple assassins; body snatchers; wound alteration specialist; etc; etc; etc; to continue to spread BS without flinging some of it back into the faces of those who would continue to promote such nonsense.

Might I take the time to express my personal appreciation to those who, irrelevant as to whether or not they formerly believed much of this BS, are now beginning to view the physical assassination of JFK within the factual boundaries of which it must be examined if one is to ever begin to unravel any of the other aspects of the assassination.

The "silent minority", although seldom heard from, does usually prevail. Unless of course they too give up.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

April 22, 1964

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg

Subject:

Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which

frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of the first and second

bullets

---------------------------------------------------------

On April 14, 1964, a conference was held to determine which

frames in the Zapruder film portray the instants at which the first

and second bullets struck.

:ice The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at

an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears

to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of

possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be

raised to an artificially high position.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×