Thomas H. Purvis

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What would appear to be a true researcher! Now, delete the word "alledgely", as the three shots in approximately 5.6 seconds is BS. Factually, there were only two shots in this elapsed time. Shot#3 did not occur until approximately 1.9 seconds AFTER the Z313/Shot#2 headshot. And, due to the short elapsed time, this had to be what is referred to as a "Snap Shot" in which one throws the rifle up, and utilizing it's fixed iron sights, shoots. Which shot, by the way also struck JFK in the head. Tom

And the correct answer would be that when one has a "rabid" dog that in fact has no teeth, one gets rid of the dog anyway. P.S. "Rip" Robertson worked for the CIA during the Korean War, in which he was assigned ALL responsibility for landing of boatloads of Korean "guerilla" fighters into North Korea. He. Robertson, had held a similar position in the South China sea, prior to his transfer to "JACK" Command in South Korea. South/North Korea has one of the highest rising tides of any place in the world. In order to land seacraft, one must know all about the beach gradient as well as to whether one may have to bog through several feet of mud. As the holder of his position, Robertson would have fully known the "beach gradient" at the Bay of Pigs, long prior to any attempted amphibious landing.

Personally, I would seriously doubt that it took more than 10-minutes for those who have received the information, to have reviewed and now fully comprehend exactly why the "cowlick" bullet entry peformed in the manner in which it did.

For reasons (which have been fully explained to others), the FBI never presented this attempt at manipulation of the facts, and were it not for Mr. Robert West having provided me with the survey plat, survey notes, as well as having explained what actually transpired, this little event would have been lost in the other confusion surrounding the subject. Tom Purvis

Thanks, Robert, for posting this. How uninspiring. It sounds like a rehash of the Discovery Channel's programs. They actually think McAdams is an expert on the medical evidence. Sickening. =============================================================================================================== They actually think McAdams is an expert on the medical evidence. Sickening. =============================================================================================================== Coming from someone who does not even recognize a "reverse image" of an autopsy photograph, this statement does not pass any test of credibility. Tom Purvis P.S. Since Professor McAdams is in receipt of the full contingent of 80+ newspaper publishings which deal with all three shots of the assassination, and since "Tink" Thompson is in possession of the 30+ publishings which deal ONLY with CE399, how it came to exist, and the wounds that it is responsible for, this just may be an attempt at presentation of some relatively new factual information. Which, is considerably more than one can usually expect to see here.

It is not my problem if you are confused by simple facts.

The Garrison Investigation: Smoke; mirrors; & Land Sharks!

Tom: Could you please elaborate on this. Who created the smoke screen? First off, history needs to be corrected in that Lee Harvey Oswald was of Louisiana (& Primarily New Orleans) descent. As most persons are aware, one does not s**t in their own back yard, and Dallas, TX with it's radical right element was certainly a good location in which to assassinate a President of the US and ultimately have the deed blamed on Dallas and it's right-wing politics. The "power structure" within New Orleans lies not with those who are currently in what is some temporary political position. It lies with those who possess the capability to place these persons in the various political positions. Therefore, Jim Garrison, not unlike any other political figure in New Orleans, did what he was instructed to do or else he suffered the consequences. Now, if one could only resolve exactly who, within the deep south city of New Orleans, LA, would have reason to replace JFK. Hint: It would be those who, for whatever reason, had the means and reasons to end Fidel Castro's control of Cuba. Just perhaps someone whom United Fruit entrusted to their most confidential tasks. (just more of my riddles, I am certain of)

But that was Garrison's ENTIRE CASE, and it relied ENTIRELY on the ridiculous, uncorroborated testimony of Perry Russo. As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination. In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks". Tom P.S. John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum. With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths. Many of which can be found on this forum.

Mr. Knight I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested. I am going to try to answer these questions but I would like it understood that a lot of what I am going to say is assumption and, without access to vast stocks of M91/38 short rifles, impossible to prove. That being said, let us continue. ====================== If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested. ===================== In 1941, the Italian government produced the Model 91/41 "Long" rifle. In which, by the way, the progressive gain twist of the rifling was deleted. Therefore, there would be absolutely no trouble in taking one of these rifle barrels and cutting it down in order to produce a Model 91/38 (6.5mm) Short rifle. In addition, virtually any of the old Long Rifles that were produced in the 6.5mm could have, and were undoubtedly converted to the newer 7.35mm versions of the weapons. Just in event our new Expert is unaware, when one takes any rifle barrel that is in 6.5mm calliber and thereafter bores the weapon to a 7.35mm caliber, they have effectively removed ALL indications of any rifle markings and now in fact have a "smooth bore" weapon. Thereafter, with the correct and proper machining equipment, new rifleing marks can be milled into the weapon. This is the case for many of the 7.35mm versions of this Model 38, which were later changeg/adapted to fit the German cartridge. Several of these weapons have been found to exist with what appears to be a "German Re-Work" stamp, which would indicate that the change in the rifle bore and chamber was in fact done by a German armament firm. So! Were I to find one of these weapons, and known absolultely nothing regarding the Carcano and it's multitudes of modifications, then I would most probably assume that I was in possession of a "GERMAN MAUSER". P.S. A "Mil-dispersion test" merely demonstrates the ability of a weapon to fire a consistently accurate pattern. An NRA "Master", who has a quality scope as well as "match" ammo, that is climatelly controlled in it's temperature, most certainlly should outshoot (for accuracy) any factory test which utilizes "run-of-the-mill" ammo. Surely, as a proclaimed "shooter" you are familiar with Match Ammo????????

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence." (Tom Purvis) Indeed. Might I point out that I have seen hollow point bullets that have travelled through the brains of deer that were more intact than the full metal jacket bullet that travelled through the brain of JFK? Which, should indicate to a prudent person, that the factual evidence requires an absolute examination. Tom P.S. Asking the questions is relatively simple, it is conducting the research to answer these questions that certainly gives "fits" to many.

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence." (Tom Purvis)

Mr. LamsonAre you suggesting LHO purposely made a soft point or hollow point bullet by cutting the tip from a full metal jacket bullet? I hardly think this could be the case, for a number of reasons. First, the unfired cartridge in LHO's alleged carcano was intact and unmodified, as WC evidence photos will attest. Do you seriously think LHO knew exactly how many rounds he needed and only scored one (or two) of them? Why was CE 399 not scored? Second, I have tried this before with surplus Lee Enfield .303 cartridges. It is impossible to make a straight and even cut, even if all one is doing is scoring the tip (and considering the thickness of the 6.5 Carcano jacket, this would have to be a VERY deep score). Although a hit at very close range is possible, accuracy at distances approaching 100 yards suffers accordingly. Third, was not the intact jacket nose of the bullet that hit JFK's head supposedly found in the front of the limousine? You are babbling bobby. Try a file next time. Translated from bobbyspeak... "I can't deny this so ill spew instead" If the bullet that struck JFK's head was "filed", why was CE 399 and the unfired cartridge found in the 6.5 Carcano not "filed"? Do you seriously believe Oswald knew exactly which bullet was going to strike JFK's head and only "filed" that one? And have you forgotten that the INTACT jacket nose of the bullet that struck JFK in the head was supposedly found in the front of the limo passenger compartment, completely "unfiled"? If you do not wish to address these two points, this will be the last time I respond to you on this thread. Please stop wasting everyone's time. In the event that he has "forgotten" this information, it is to the best.---------Since it is not now nor has it ever been factually true. The highly deformed (and split) lead core to the bullet nose was recovered, and this fragment contained a small extent of the remaining copper jacket (which was so insufficient that it could not be made as a "ballistic match" to the recovered 91/38 Short Rifle). Which, along with your other misleading information, is no doubt sending more and more uninformed persons diving off down into the deep, dark, damp rabbit hole in the ground.

Mr. Knight I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. In order to save on research time, let me again repeat: "Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule it merely means that one does not understand the evidence. Tom Purvis If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested.

P.S. Forgot to ask! Exactly how many of the various makes and models of the Carcano was it that you have??????? How many was it that you have test fired?????????

Mr. Knight I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested. Hello Robert: I, for one, would be very interested in your revelations regarding Tom Purvis' misconceptions regarding "the Carcano" and I hope you will enlighten us further. Gary Murr quote from Thomas H. Purvis* Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:01 AM Mr. Eisenberg: Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?Mr. Simmons: I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army. Mr. Eisenberg: And how long have you held this position? Mr. Simmons: This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories. Mr. Eisenberg: How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the area of evaluation of weapons? Mr. Simmons: Since 1951, in various classes of weapons. Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the laboratories on small arms. Mr. Simmons: Most of our evaluations have been associated with military rifles. Mr. Eisenberg: How long altogether have you spent in this area? Mr. Simmons: Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continously concerned with this since 1957. Mr. Eisenberg: But your specialty is in the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to-- Mr. Simmons: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Simmons: Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be employed and the wounding power of the projectiles. Mr. Simmons: Yes, we fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in the test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil. Mr. Eisenberg: Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles? Mr. Simmons: Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing. Mr. Eisenberg: Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy? Mr. Simmons: Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round-to-round dispersion is on the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition. Mr. McCloy: Your are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it? Mr. Simmons: The M-14. ____________________________________________________________________ WC Testimony of Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistic Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army. My personal "military rifle" experience began with the old M1-Garand and progressed through the M-14 and to the M-16, and rest assured, this experience has demonstrated that the Carcano M91/38 6.5mm Short Rifle is as accurate as any of these weapons at the shorter ranges of less than 300 meters. Weapon accuracy as relates to the Carcano and the JFK assassination, is a "non-issue" for anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the assassination rifle." __ end quote __ This exchange between Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Simmons was a well orchestrated ploy to lead the members of the Warren Commission away from the simple fact that Oswald's purported 6.5 mm M91/38 Carcano did not have even a fraction of the accuracy the standard issue 7.62 mm M-14 had. If Mr. Purvis is the expert in firearms he claims to be, he should be able to see through this propaganda, yet he supports it wholeheartedly. Let us examine the above testimony. A "mil", or "milliradian", is equivalent to .0573 degree of a circle, and is a measurement used by the military for many years. If you have a circle that is 100 yards in radius and measure outwards from the centre, a 1 mil arc will be 3.6" of the outer circumference of that circle. Twenty rounds fired through the 6.5 mm short rifle gave a dispersion of .29 mils. .29 mils x 3.6" = 1.04 In other words, if a rifle produced a result of .29 mils dispersion in a bench test, it should be shooting just over a 1" group at 100 yards. This is not an unreasonable expectation of an M-14, still used as a sniper weapon today. A good marksman, using a bench rest, should have no difficulty putting bullets into a 1.5" group at 100 yards. However, let us look at the results obtained by FBI SA Robert A. Frazier: From Wikipedia: "1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[65] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2½ inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[66] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[67] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."I'm not sure if everyone can decipher all of this but, the one essential piece of information presented here is "At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle." Mr. Purvis dares to compare the 6.5 mm M91/38 shooting a 3 to 5 inch group at 100 yards to an M-14 shooting a 1 to 1.5 inch group at 100 yards? Indeed! The question remains, though, if the dispersion test was accurate, how can there be such a discrepancy (from 1" to 3-5") when it goes to actual bench rest shooting at 100 yards? The obvious answer is quite clear; Mr. Simmons does not tell us how far from the muzzle of the rifle the target for the dispersion test actually was. It could have been no more than 3 or 4 inches. Placing the target at this point would only measure that deviation created by the barrel (or improperly sized bullet) and would not take into account the effects of an unstable bullet over 100 yards. To obtain results of .29 mils, at this close distance, would make the barrel and bullet quite suspect, as the M-14 can obtain the same .29 mils at 100 yards (plus shoot a 1" group). Personally, Me thinks that someone does not understand the "bench test" which is merely a testing of the ability of the rifle to fie a close dispersion pattern, and which is determined with the weapon in an absolutely FIXED position, as compared with eactly how accurate FBI Agent Robert Frazier could fire the weapon from the shoulder fired position. Tom Purvis M1-Garand--------Mississippi Army National Guard M-14 (expert rating)-----Enlisted/RA service, United States Army M-16 (expert rating)-----Officer, United States Army Special Forces. Personally, I would not believe anything that I had to say on the subject matter. However, when Ronald Simmons and FBI Agent Frazier speaks, one just may want to pay atention to what they have to say regarding the weapon accuracy. P