Thomas H. Purvis
-
Posts
5,073 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thomas H. Purvis
-
-
I have had 13 years experience with the Carcano be caused i owned one at one time and it was set up just like Oswald's.
I did my best to set the scope on my rifle to be just like Oswald's on Nov 22.
But if you look at the reenactments that have been done they show the shooters using the scope to do the shooting but was any done using the iron sights in any of the test?
Doesn't really matter...with the same rifle from the same position, the view would've been almost identical...just a "pumpkin on a post" in the field of view instead of crosshairs. Nothing else changes.
For the record!
The Model 91/38 Short Rifle had "non-adjustable" sighting as the front sight and the rear sight were absolutely "fixed" and could not be adjusted.
The weapon was factory "Zeroed" utilizing these fixed sights.
Therefore: If one could take up an absolutely perfect sighting picture, identical to what is established in the factory "ZERO" process, then they would hit exactly where the sights demonstrated, each and every time, at the ZERO range.
However, we are of the human species, with each of us having different lengths of arms, etc.
Therefore we differ among each other as to exactly how we hold a rifle, and even the same person, without extensive training, will take up a slightly different sight picture each and every time that we fire the rifle.
Now!
The M1-Garand, which LHO qualified with, has an adjustable rear sight which is set initially at the factory ZERO range for the weapon.
Again, for the ZERO Range, if one establishes a perfect sight picture each and every time they fire the weapon, they will have a virtually perfect shot grouping.
But! Being humans, the US was smart enough to compensate for the human error by maintaining an adjustable rear sight.
Therefore, it one will look into LHO's Rangefire qualification records they will find that LHO actually had a relatively poor sighting alignment, and he had to make considerable adjustment to the rear sight (in elevation as well as windage) in order to merely make the weapon shoot where he was looking.
This is commonly known as your individual "ZERO" as the adjustments made to the rear sight are done so in order to compensate for the inaccuracies in sighting which are injected into the targeting by the specific individual and how he holds and aims the weapon.
-
Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.
So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.
The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.
Exactly where do these "non-shooters" keep popping up from????
The scope crosshairs may have beeen "mis-aligned" for you, me, Frazier, and multiple others.
However, not unlike the adjustable rear sight on the M1-Garand; the M14; and the M16, the adjustment of the crosshairs may have been exactly right/correct for whoever the shooter was.
In fact, if one will check the M1-Garand adjustments of LHO during his rangefire qualifications, they just may find a similarity between the rear sight adjustment utilized during his USMC rifle marksmanship qualificatios and the purportedly "high and to the right" of the Carcano scope crosshairs.
Tom
P.S. Since there was not sufficient elapsed time for target acquisition utilizing the scope between shot#2 and shot#3. one can bet their sweet bippy that the third shot was a "snap shot" in which only the fixed sights of the Carcano were utilized.
And somewhere in the dim, dark and dank recesses of my memory, I believe that someone at one time or another may have raised the point that the possibility exists that LHO may have been LEFT-eye dominant...meaning that the "high and to the right" orientation of the scope may not have applied to a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye. Notice just HOW FAR to the left the scope on the Carcano is mounted...for a shooter with a dominant RIGHT eye, it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to shoot with any degree of accuracy. But a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye suddenly makes the scope orientation make MUCH more sense.
Too late now to confirm whether LHO had a dominant left eye, of course...but that WOULD answer a lot of questions about the scope.
Having dug deeply into LHO's family background, I am personally convinced that he was in fact one of those "left eye dominant" persons, just as was my father.
More of those things which we will never know for certain, just as we will not know if he was in fact left-handed and became right-handed through the influence of his mother and others to change this trait.
The issue of the "scope mis-alignment" is a mute item which will continue to be an argumentative item forever.
-
Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.
So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.
The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.
Exactly where do these "non-shooters" keep popping up from????
The scope crosshairs may have beeen "mis-aligned" for you, me, Frazier, and multiple others.
However, not unlike the adjustable rear sight on the M1-Garand; the M14; and the M16, the adjustment of the crosshairs may have been exactly right/correct for whoever the shooter was.
In fact, if one will check the M1-Garand adjustments of LHO during his rangefire qualifications, they just may find a similarity between the rear sight adjustment utilized during his USMC rifle marksmanship qualificatios and the purportedly "high and to the right" of the Carcano scope crosshairs.
Tom
P.S. Since there was not sufficient elapsed time for target acquisition utilizing the scope between shot#2 and shot#3. one can bet their sweet bippy that the third shot was a "snap shot" in which only the fixed sights of the Carcano were utilized.
-
Try though I may, I'm having trouble lining things up in the matter of bullet trajectory and the JFK assassination.
In the presidential limousine, the jump seat upon which Connally sat [i believe I spelled his name correctly--this is, of course, for Mr. Phelps, for whom accuracy of detai apparently doesn't matter] is positioned slightly inboard from the position of JFK in the corner of the back seat. So I address this question to folks such as Mr. Von Pein, who conclude that the Warren Commission essentially got it right:
Since the curvature on Elm Street is right-to-left, until the point where Elm then turns left-to right to enter the teiple overpass, how could a bullet that was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD--presumably at a slight left-to-right angle--have suddenly made a left turn, and have ended up going slightly right-to-left to wound Connaly? I might find it more believable if the shot had been made from the southWEST corner of the TSBD...but I just dont see it happening from the southEAST window, unless the limo made a sudden lurch toward the RIGHT curb--which the z-film does NOT indicate--and thereby put Connally in line with JFK from the southeast window.
It may be argued that the limo approached the right curb DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the TSBD, in its turn from Houston onto Elm...but this is, relatively speaking, several LONG seconds before someone in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD would've been able to fire at JFK's back.
Now, addressing Tom Purvis' explanation of the 3rd shot--which I believe offers a more plausible explanation of Connally's wounds--I find I also have the same probelm with Tom's proposed trajectory from the southeast window. Even if Greer steered the limo slightly right as he turned to ook into the back seat as the 3rd shot was fired, I find the angle of trajectory, left-to-right, easier to believe if the sniper was shooting from the southWEST window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. In fact, the ONLY time the proposed left-to right trajectory lines up inside the limo is as the limo turns right to go under the triple overpass...long after what EVERYONE agrees was the point of the last shot.
So can someone expain to me exactly how this works, and how you can get a bullet to make a left turn after it's fired? Might come in handy in my deer hunting to know how to do that [just joking on that last part]. And to Mr.Von Pein: Please confine your answer to any FACTS you can find, and leave the ridicule out. Unlike you, I came into the JFK assassination discussion with an open mind. I'm swayed by facts and evidence, not coulda-woulda-must've stuff. I believe that JFK was shot by an assassin on Elm Street in front of the TSBD. I believe that LHO may have had opportunity to pull the trigger. BUT I'm not yet convinced that LHO was the ONLY prson who had opportunity to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and after seeing all the evidence I have seen on bullet trajectories [suggested and otherwise], I'm not so sure that the southeast window "sniper's nest" wasn't set up as a ruse, when the actual shots more likely might've been fired from the southWEST window.
So pull out your FACTS and convince me...anyone who has 'em. Show me how, when the line of sight from the supposed "sniper's nest" to the target is slightly left-to-right, the bullet traveled right-to-left once they arrived at the limo. I just can't see the logic in that...somehow.
The majority of your questions will be answered in the next publishing of The George County Times.
Which, will be on the stand Wednesday evening.
Tom
-
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0071a.htm
Anyone care to take a guess as to exactly why JBC (as well as Nellie) testified before the Warren Commission as well as the HSCA, that JBC was "doubled over" and down in the seat with his head in the lap of Nellie at the time of the third/last/final shot.
??????Especially when the Z-film shows that JBC was sitting quite erect with his right hand stretched outwards at the time of the Z313 impact.
Another "great enigma"??????----------Nope!
Survey stationing 4+95 certainly begins to look awfully good to me!
-
-
...anyone...?????
NOPE!
However, virtually anyone can produce additional drawings (as did the HSCA) in attempt to explain everything from the problems of the cross-angle of fire, to the anomalies of the "abrasion collar".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory
Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to ask exactly why would JFK be leaning so far forward at the time of the first shot impact, just as with HSCA Exhibit#144, no one bothered to ask exactly why JBC would be leaned far to his left and turned far to his right before any shot had been fired.
A whole lot of intelligent (as well as ignorant) persons have accepted such drawings as if there was some factual basis in them.
Tom
P.S. Hope they wait a couple of more months before laying off those postal workers.
Personally, I am doing what little I can to protect their continued employment.
-
I really don't understand why so many knowledgable researchers waste their time with Tom Purvis. How can you discuss this case with someone who believes the Warren Commission was correct in all their major conclusions (Oswald shot JFK alone, with THAT rifle, from the TSBD sixth floor window) but simultaneously maintains they were engaged in a huge cover up? For good measure, throw in the fact he is evidently a film alterationist. His perplexing theories make Ray Carroll's campaign to defame all of us who strongly believe Oswald wasn't the assassin into "Oswald accusers" something perfectly reasonable.
Please, Tom, just one more time- let me ask you to concisely (I know, I know- that's an impossible request) explain the incredible contradictions in your hypothesis. You confidently state your conclusions, which echo the official story across the board, and dismiss your critics in an abrupt manner. Thus, you should have little trouble in illuminating us on the specifics here. Explain WHAT the Warren Commission covered up, since you agree that Oswald alone assassinated JFK? Also, please humor us as the rationale behind your attraction to the film alteration theory. Since there were no "nonexistent conspirators" you are always accusing us of chasing in vain, WHO would have altered the film record? WHY would they have done that?
We all await your concise replies.
POLITICS!
That is about as concise as I can get!
P.S. The WC wasted so much time and effort in attempting to make the SBT work, that they forgot (& neglected) to see if there was in fact a conspiracy behind the assassinatio.
P.S. A "Lone Shooter" means merely that!
It neither identifies who the shooter was, nor does it negate any possibility that this "Lone Shooter" was the end result of some conspiracy in which he/she was merely the instrument of a plan.
-
In 1967, shortly following his indictment of Clay Shaw, Garrison discussed the various conspiratorial forces out to destroy his investigation, and the many charges being leveled at him. Next, he said, he expected them to accuse him of "child molesting." As Patricia Lambert notes, in light of later events, this statement sounds like a preemptive strike.(51)
In 1969, a prominent New Orleans family briefly considered pressing charges against Garrison for the sexual molestation of their thirteen-year-old son. In the end, concerns for privacy and the safety of their son caused the family to drop the matter, but the head of a local citizens' watchdog committee informed the Orleans Parish Grand Jury of the matter, and someone on the Grand Jury leaked word of the story to columnist Jack Anderson. Off the record, Anderson confirmed with Grand Jury foreman William J. Krummel, Sr., that the Grand Jury was looking into the matter. Krummel was afraid to speak for the record, he said, because "I'm afraid that if I say so [in public], they'll [the DA's office will] want to throw me in jail."(52)
Anderson confirmed the story with the boy's family and decided to devote one of his columns to it. Noting that one of the family members "is one of the most respected men in the South," Anderson reported that the Grand Jury was investigating the allegation that Jim Garrison had molested a thirteen-year-old boy in June 1969 at the New Orleans Athletic Club. The Grand Jury ultimately declined to pursue the matter, however, and the story faded away.(53)
In 1993 Patricia Lambert was granted interviews with several family members, including the victim and an older brother who was present when the incident occurred. In exchange for a pledge of anonymity, the brothers agreed to relate what had happened.(54)
The two boys accompanied their father every Sunday to the New Orleans Athletic Club; it was a "family ritual," the older brother explained. The three were alone in the club's swimming pool when Jim Garrison approached them and struck up a conversation. In accordance with the club's rules, all were swimming nude; to reduce contamination, bathing suits were not allowed, as the pool's salt water could not be chlorinated. After chatting briefly, Garrison invited the three to join him in the club's Slumber Room. The brothers would have preferred to decline the offer, as they had no interest in taking a nap in the middle of the day. "No, we ought to go," their father insisted, "he's talking about the Kennedy assassination and we might find out something."(55)
The three accompanied Garrison to the Slumber Room, which resembled a "dormitory bunk room"; it was rectangular with an aisle down the middle and a row of beds on each side. Both brothers recall how dark the room was, as there were no windows. "You shut the door," the older brother recalls, "and it was black." "Everybody get into bed and I'm going to turn off the light," Garrison said, and they all complied. The younger brother took "a cot way to the back," while Garrison took the cot next to him; the father and older brother were on the other side of the room. "I don't know if Garrison set it up that way or not," the younger man says. "Because all he had to do was sit on the edge of his bed, reach across, which he did, you know, and lift the blanket."(56)
"When Garrison first did it," the younger boy recalls, "my eyes were not adjusted to the dark and I . . . could just make out the image of somebody. And . . . when somebody lifts up a blanket and sticks their hand under there -- and he didn't really grab. He just fondled a bit and then he sat back down and I jumped up and I went over to my brother and said, '[name deleted], are you playing a joke on me?' . . . I didn't know what was going on. . . . And [his brother] said, '[name deleted], go back to bed. Daddy's going to be really mad at you if you cause any trouble in here.' So I went back. He thought I was just being a little kid, you know. So then when [Garrison] did it again and I could tell who it was . . . then I went back to my brother and told him . . ."(57)
The older brother went to their father and said they had "to leave right now." Their father, oblivious to what had happened, objected until he realized something was seriously wrong. Outside the Slumber Room, the older brother explained to their father what had happened, "and he was visibly shaken." The father went to retrieve his clothes from another room, and while he was gone Garrison came out of the Slumber Room.(58)
"I walked up to him," the older brother recalls, "and I said, 'You son of a bitch, you pervert, you queer.' I was livid. I couldn't believe this guy tried to molest my little brother. I was really into Garrison's face. I was really threatening him. I was enraged. I may have put my hands on him. I know I scared him because he said, 'You're assaulting me and I'm going to have to defend myself.' And he went back toward his locker and I remember I could see in his locker there was a gun hanging in there -- like a .38 snub-nose revolver -- hanging in a shoulder holster on a hook in his locker. At that point I became very concerned that Garrison was going to shoot me and I remember seeing, to my surprise, that there was another man who witnessed this. A man in his sixties, by the lavatories. I remember thinking, oh, good, there's a witness to this, but he left the area because he didn't want to get involved. By this time my father had gotten dressed and sort of caught me at the tail end of this altercation. He was five-feet-ten-inches and I vividly remember him walking up to [the six-foot-six-inch] Garrison and he took his finger and he started poking him in the stomach and he said, 'You fooled with the wrong people this time. You're not going to get away with this.' Garrison said, 'You're crazy. I don't know what you're talking about.' And he said something to the effect that 'I'm going to have your son arrested for assaulting me.' At that time we left. We went home."(59)
Somehow word had gotten out about the incident, because their phone began "ringing off the hook" with people urging the family to press charges. The father called a relative, an attorney, who advised against taking any action; he thought "terrible harm" would come to the younger son and that they "would never prove anything." In fact, the family became so concerned for the boy's safety that they began picking him up from school everyday. "They thought something was going to happen to me," he recalls. "I went to see the Kevin Costner movie -- which made me sick, to glorify him like that. I saw Stone in the Napoleon House [café] one day -- I wanted to tell him about this. But it's so awkward."(60)
Journalist David Chandler, who had once been quite friendly with Garrison (the DA had been best man at Chandler's 1965 wedding) insisted to Patricia Lambert that the Slumber Room incident was merely the tip of the iceberg. Garrison was "basically a pedophile," Chandler alleged, claiming first-hand knowledge of Garrison's preferences for adolescent girls, "around sixteen and younger."(61)
All the while, of course, the DA could be sure that the power of his office would protect him from suffering any consequences; none of his victims dared to risk a public confrontation with the man. For their part, the two brothers of the Slumber Room incident remain angry to this day about what happened, but all involved feel that they would have fared much worse had they pressed charges. In light of the tactics Garrison used in his assassination probe, it hardly seems far-fetched to expect him to have gone to similar lengths, or worse, should his own life and career become jeopardized by his actions.
From: Jim Garrison's Investigator Bill Gurvich Speaks:
Gurvitch also mentioned that he had been the investigator who had later obtained affidavits indicating that Garrison had sexually molested a 15 year old boy in the New Orleans Athletic club in about 1970. Gurvitch stated that his involvement in this episode came about because he was a member of the club and heard of the story from the father of the boy involved. Gurvitch stated that he secured affidavits from the boy, his father, and the boy's brother, and tried to get the city authorities to press charges against Garrison. He stated that the authorities wouldn't touch the case however, and the boy's father was reluctant to make the alleged incident public.
For additional details, see Patricia Lambert's ground-breaking and highly regarded book analyzing the Garrison investigation which provides compelling evidence that establishes that Jim Garrison was undoubtedly a pedophile: False Witness.
Conclusion: Jim Garrison was indeed a child molester!
And, I was once of the opinion that I was the only one here who was sufficiently foolish enough to attempt to cast a few unsavory facts about Jimbo.
Tom
P.S. I got your back!
Enjoy his back, Tom... The dude still can't convince anyone here who has a modicum of case knowledge that LHO acted alone and the WCR wasn't a farce...
Sgt Mikey simply needs an audience at the cost of JGarrison's defects or not of character... So he advances nothing other than wasting bandwidth. Have a nice Christmas.
1. Resolve exactly how JFK was assassinated:
Once proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then some of the dedicated energies can be directed at the Warren Commission "farce"/aka intentional lie/misrepresentation of the facts.
2. Begin to explain the rationale and reasoning behind much of the Warren Commission's misrepresentation of the facts.
This will ultimately draw the attention of sufficient persons in position to demand that a new, non-biased governmental investigation (with complete transparency and oversight) be established.
3. Which, by it's nature will demonstrate that LHO was, at minimum, being "guided"/assisted by someone well prior to the assassination of JFK.
Tom
P.S. As a "shooter", Mike is one of many who can assist in dispelling the BS rumors regarding how difficult the shots may have been, as well as the added BS in regards to the true capabilities of the Model 91/38 Carcano short rifle.
And, he can add further to the true abilities of LHO to accomplish the relatively simple shots. (Which most Boy Scouts could have accomplished).
Once many of these completely errenous BS rumors are ended, then true researchers can devote their energies to some of the unanswered questions of the event.
For those reasons alone, Mike is an asset to the research community.
Of course, he is somewhat like me in that because they do not like what he has to say, they are unwilling to pay/give attention to the importance of his knowledge.
I do seem to recall when many here (as well as elswhere) lapped up whatever Mr. Congeniality/aka mythological "Scout Sniper" had to say on the subject, and am also reminded of what a female poster once said to me:
"I might have believed you if you had not made me mad"!
Personally, I did not come here to be "liked"!--------Of which it would appear I have also succeeded quite well at.
-
In 1967, shortly following his indictment of Clay Shaw, Garrison discussed the various conspiratorial forces out to destroy his investigation, and the many charges being leveled at him. Next, he said, he expected them to accuse him of "child molesting." As Patricia Lambert notes, in light of later events, this statement sounds like a preemptive strike.(51)
In 1969, a prominent New Orleans family briefly considered pressing charges against Garrison for the sexual molestation of their thirteen-year-old son. In the end, concerns for privacy and the safety of their son caused the family to drop the matter, but the head of a local citizens' watchdog committee informed the Orleans Parish Grand Jury of the matter, and someone on the Grand Jury leaked word of the story to columnist Jack Anderson. Off the record, Anderson confirmed with Grand Jury foreman William J. Krummel, Sr., that the Grand Jury was looking into the matter. Krummel was afraid to speak for the record, he said, because "I'm afraid that if I say so [in public], they'll [the DA's office will] want to throw me in jail."(52)
Anderson confirmed the story with the boy's family and decided to devote one of his columns to it. Noting that one of the family members "is one of the most respected men in the South," Anderson reported that the Grand Jury was investigating the allegation that Jim Garrison had molested a thirteen-year-old boy in June 1969 at the New Orleans Athletic Club. The Grand Jury ultimately declined to pursue the matter, however, and the story faded away.(53)
In 1993 Patricia Lambert was granted interviews with several family members, including the victim and an older brother who was present when the incident occurred. In exchange for a pledge of anonymity, the brothers agreed to relate what had happened.(54)
The two boys accompanied their father every Sunday to the New Orleans Athletic Club; it was a "family ritual," the older brother explained. The three were alone in the club's swimming pool when Jim Garrison approached them and struck up a conversation. In accordance with the club's rules, all were swimming nude; to reduce contamination, bathing suits were not allowed, as the pool's salt water could not be chlorinated. After chatting briefly, Garrison invited the three to join him in the club's Slumber Room. The brothers would have preferred to decline the offer, as they had no interest in taking a nap in the middle of the day. "No, we ought to go," their father insisted, "he's talking about the Kennedy assassination and we might find out something."(55)
The three accompanied Garrison to the Slumber Room, which resembled a "dormitory bunk room"; it was rectangular with an aisle down the middle and a row of beds on each side. Both brothers recall how dark the room was, as there were no windows. "You shut the door," the older brother recalls, "and it was black." "Everybody get into bed and I'm going to turn off the light," Garrison said, and they all complied. The younger brother took "a cot way to the back," while Garrison took the cot next to him; the father and older brother were on the other side of the room. "I don't know if Garrison set it up that way or not," the younger man says. "Because all he had to do was sit on the edge of his bed, reach across, which he did, you know, and lift the blanket."(56)
"When Garrison first did it," the younger boy recalls, "my eyes were not adjusted to the dark and I . . . could just make out the image of somebody. And . . . when somebody lifts up a blanket and sticks their hand under there -- and he didn't really grab. He just fondled a bit and then he sat back down and I jumped up and I went over to my brother and said, '[name deleted], are you playing a joke on me?' . . . I didn't know what was going on. . . . And [his brother] said, '[name deleted], go back to bed. Daddy's going to be really mad at you if you cause any trouble in here.' So I went back. He thought I was just being a little kid, you know. So then when [Garrison] did it again and I could tell who it was . . . then I went back to my brother and told him . . ."(57)
The older brother went to their father and said they had "to leave right now." Their father, oblivious to what had happened, objected until he realized something was seriously wrong. Outside the Slumber Room, the older brother explained to their father what had happened, "and he was visibly shaken." The father went to retrieve his clothes from another room, and while he was gone Garrison came out of the Slumber Room.(58)
"I walked up to him," the older brother recalls, "and I said, 'You son of a bitch, you pervert, you queer.' I was livid. I couldn't believe this guy tried to molest my little brother. I was really into Garrison's face. I was really threatening him. I was enraged. I may have put my hands on him. I know I scared him because he said, 'You're assaulting me and I'm going to have to defend myself.' And he went back toward his locker and I remember I could see in his locker there was a gun hanging in there -- like a .38 snub-nose revolver -- hanging in a shoulder holster on a hook in his locker. At that point I became very concerned that Garrison was going to shoot me and I remember seeing, to my surprise, that there was another man who witnessed this. A man in his sixties, by the lavatories. I remember thinking, oh, good, there's a witness to this, but he left the area because he didn't want to get involved. By this time my father had gotten dressed and sort of caught me at the tail end of this altercation. He was five-feet-ten-inches and I vividly remember him walking up to [the six-foot-six-inch] Garrison and he took his finger and he started poking him in the stomach and he said, 'You fooled with the wrong people this time. You're not going to get away with this.' Garrison said, 'You're crazy. I don't know what you're talking about.' And he said something to the effect that 'I'm going to have your son arrested for assaulting me.' At that time we left. We went home."(59)
Somehow word had gotten out about the incident, because their phone began "ringing off the hook" with people urging the family to press charges. The father called a relative, an attorney, who advised against taking any action; he thought "terrible harm" would come to the younger son and that they "would never prove anything." In fact, the family became so concerned for the boy's safety that they began picking him up from school everyday. "They thought something was going to happen to me," he recalls. "I went to see the Kevin Costner movie -- which made me sick, to glorify him like that. I saw Stone in the Napoleon House [café] one day -- I wanted to tell him about this. But it's so awkward."(60)
Journalist David Chandler, who had once been quite friendly with Garrison (the DA had been best man at Chandler's 1965 wedding) insisted to Patricia Lambert that the Slumber Room incident was merely the tip of the iceberg. Garrison was "basically a pedophile," Chandler alleged, claiming first-hand knowledge of Garrison's preferences for adolescent girls, "around sixteen and younger."(61)
All the while, of course, the DA could be sure that the power of his office would protect him from suffering any consequences; none of his victims dared to risk a public confrontation with the man. For their part, the two brothers of the Slumber Room incident remain angry to this day about what happened, but all involved feel that they would have fared much worse had they pressed charges. In light of the tactics Garrison used in his assassination probe, it hardly seems far-fetched to expect him to have gone to similar lengths, or worse, should his own life and career become jeopardized by his actions.
From: Jim Garrison's Investigator Bill Gurvich Speaks:
Gurvitch also mentioned that he had been the investigator who had later obtained affidavits indicating that Garrison had sexually molested a 15 year old boy in the New Orleans Athletic club in about 1970. Gurvitch stated that his involvement in this episode came about because he was a member of the club and heard of the story from the father of the boy involved. Gurvitch stated that he secured affidavits from the boy, his father, and the boy's brother, and tried to get the city authorities to press charges against Garrison. He stated that the authorities wouldn't touch the case however, and the boy's father was reluctant to make the alleged incident public.
For additional details, see Patricia Lambert's ground-breaking and highly regarded book analyzing the Garrison investigation which provides compelling evidence that establishes that Jim Garrison was undoubtedly a pedophile: False Witness.
Conclusion: Jim Garrison was indeed a child molester!
And, I was once of the opinion that I was the only one here who was sufficiently foolish enough to attempt to cast a few unsavory facts about Jimbo.
Tom
P.S. I got your back!
-
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight.
This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film.
Of my knowledge, there exist only one photograph which shows FBI Agent Robert Frazier at the sixth floor window with the rifle.
And, CE887-----Ain't it!
Tom
P.S. What you see is more of "Shaneyfelt's Shenanigan's"
I take it that no one has caught on to the fact that Shaneyflet is not dressed according to the FBI (Hoover's) standard.
As with all things, there is a reason!
P.S. "No one could have accurately fired that rifle from the way they had it "jacked up" in the window"
Mr. Robert West to Tom Purvis, during one of my conversations and visits to his home in Dallas.
P.P.S. It also "ain't" where FBI Agent Frazier took up position with the rifle during the WC re-enactment and Frazier's tour of duty at the window.
-
I really don't understand why so many knowledgable researchers waste their time with Tom Purvis. How can you discuss this case with someone who believes the Warren Commission was correct in all their major conclusions (Oswald shot JFK alone, with THAT rifle, from the TSBD sixth floor window) but simultaneously maintains they were engaged in a huge cover up? For good measure, throw in the fact he is evidently a film alterationist. His perplexing theories make Ray Carroll's campaign to defame all of us who strongly believe Oswald wasn't the assassin into "Oswald accusers" something perfectly reasonable.
Please, Tom, just one more time- let me ask you to concisely (I know, I know- that's an impossible request) explain the incredible contradictions in your hypothesis. You confidently state your conclusions, which echo the official story across the board, and dismiss your critics in an abrupt manner. Thus, you should have little trouble in illuminating us on the specifics here. Explain WHAT the Warren Commission covered up, since you agree that Oswald alone assassinated JFK? Also, please humor us as the rationale behind your attraction to the film alteration theory. Since there were no "nonexistent conspirators" you are always accusing us of chasing in vain, WHO would have altered the film record? WHY would they have done that?
We all await your concise replies.
POLITICS!
That is about as concise as I can get!
P.S. The WC wasted so much time and effort in attempting to make the SBT work, that they forgot (& neglected) to see if there was in fact a conspiracy behind the assassinatio.
-
Is this right?
the so called pristine bullet lodged itself backwards in JFK with a portion continuing on.
(see the cone-shaped/flat based fragment contained within CE840) (weight=0.9 grain)---(4.5mm in diameter)
The second bullet fragmented 312-313.
(Ripped through the upper lobes of the brain.---Fragment (upon exiting skull) struck JBC's wrist.)
The third lodged in Connalys leg and disappeared.
(Passed through JFK's head (rear to front), exited in already damaged area, completely massive fracturing of the skull, exited to strike JBC in the back.
It only "disappeared" after it was surgically removed!
-
Is this right?
the so called pristine bullet lodged itself backwards in JFK with a portion continuing on.
The second bullet fragmented 312-313.
The third lodged in Connalys leg and disappeared.
Closer than most!
1. CE399 penetrated only a short distance (base-first). Striking the right transverse process of the C7 vertebrae in a base-first attitude, this sheared a 4.5mm width lead protrusion(which had squeezed out the bullet base) from the base of the bullet.
The lead core protrusion exited the anterior throat of JFK and is responsible for the small anterior throat wound.
The lead core protursion was recovered and is one of those fragments found in CE840, which by the way, weighed 0.9 grains.
(P.S.) It is no coincidence that the "punch-type" back wound of JFK measured 4mm X 7mm, and the deformed(flat) base to CE399 also measured 4mm X 7mm.
Just as it is no coincidence that a portion of the copper jacket base to CE399 was removed at some point while this bullet was in the National Archives.
The copper jacket base to this bullet contained "impact damage" created as a result of impact with a bone of the vertebral column, as well as having a "raised" edge completely around the perimeter of the bullet base.
Which edge could have been created ONLY by the bullet having passed through a material of such density that it litterally "stretched" the copper jacket backwards.
(P.P.S) The "abrasion collar" of the back wound (as determined by the HSCA as being located at the bottom edge of he wound of penetration, is merely the result of the end-over-end tumbling of the bullet as it struck JFK in the back.
Thereby creating this (direct contradiction to normal ballistics) abrasion collar at the bottom of the wound penetration as opposed to being located at the top of the wound pentration.
(P.P.P.S) The back wound of JFK has it's longest axis (7mm wide) in the horizontal, as opposed to the normal downward striking of a bullet, which causes the longest axis to be in the verticle.
(P.P.P.P.S) The reason for the "punch-type" penetrations through the coat; inner liner of the coat; and shirt worn by JFK is merely a result of the bullet striking with it's "flat-base" forward. Which, not unlike a paper-punch, punched out the fabric from the items of clothing.
(P.P.P.P.P.S) Which, also, contradictory to normal ballistic fact, also carried considerable fabric from the clothing down into the wound of entry into the back of JfK.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That should sufficiently explain why Dr. Humes could insert his finger, as well as (later) a stainless steel probe down into the back entry wound of JFK, without the lprobe (or his finger) finding any pathway for the bullet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As far as the second shot (which happens to be the Z312/313 impact, this is the "cowlick" entry which the HSCA found.
Due to a variety of reasons, this bullet (abnormally) fragmented and the fragments passed through the upper area of the parietal lobe of the brain of JFK, creating immense damage.
And, just as stated by JBC's Parkland Dr. a fragment from this bullet "escaped" and is responsible for the wrist wound of JBC.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now! Onward to the true "MAGIC BULLET" (the one that pulled the disappearing act)
First off, this bullet struck JFK in the head also.
JFK was approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z312/313 impact when this bullet struck.
And, since I am neither smarter than, nor more qualified than the elements of the SS and FBI, this also happens to be the impact location which each of these government agencies determined as the third shot impact, and so noted on their respective survey plats. (SS--12/5/63)--(FBI--2/7/64)
Which happens to have struck at survey stationing 4+95. (as opposed to stationing 4+65.3 for the Z313 impact)
Now! After having penetrated through JFK's head (having struck in the EOP region of the skull, the bullet exited JFK's head in an area of which considerable damage already existed from the Z312/313 impact.
The INTACT bullet thereafter continued on (downwards) to strike JBC in the right shoulder as he lay across the jump seats with his head in Nellie's lab, thereby exposing his shoulder and back to the flight of the bullet as well as the cerebral tissue which was blown forward from the head of JFK.
And, as they say, now you know the rest of the story:
Being:
Why JBC's coat got washed and laundered, as the back of the coat would have been covered with cerebral tissue, which could not have occurred with the Z313 impact as a result of the back of the jump seat would have prevented cerebral tissue from having been blown forward and striking all over the back of JBC's coat.
As well as, the bullet penetration into JBC's back was elongated slightly to the horizontal.---Which the WC attempted to blame on a bullet that was "yawing".
When, one places JBC leaned over across the jump seats, then the elongaged horizontal wound of entry now becomes a correctly oriented downward wound of entry that is in fact elongated vertically, as it should be.
The bullet then, of course, penetrated throuogh the chest of JBC and exited to thereafter enter his leg.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But, then again, this may in fact be more than one wants to know about the FACTS of the assassination, as it certainly puts a crimp in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza.
Tom.
P.S. It is all now a matter of "published record", of which The JFK Assassination Museum" is now in possession. (along with a few others who appear to be quite adept at understanding simple facts.)
The above which, at a minimum: a *cover-up* in the murder of JFK. Thanks for your work Tom Purvis! Have a nice holiday.
Hopefully, at some point, The Sixth Floor Museum will place on display the relatively simple forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts which demonstrate the factuality of the above.
And yes, the WC is, was, and will always remain an intentional coverup of the simple facts of the assassination.
Tom
P.S. Personally, since Lyndal Shaneyfelt was involved, I would not (and have not) completely discard the conceptial idea of alteration to the Z-film.
-
For those who are not gainfully occupied in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza and who have an actual interest in factual truths as well as documents which will ultimately be of some historical significance, the following information is provided:
Beginning with the first weekly publishing of the newspaper (for the month of November) "THE GEORGE COUNTY TIMES", the relatively simple facts of the third/last/final shot impact to the head of JFK will be published.
Additionaly, for those few who actually have interest in facts, this, the third/last/final shot IS NOT the Z312/313 impact. (which was the second shot).
The third/last/final shot impacted the head of JFK at approximately survey stationing 4+95, which happens to be almost 30-feet farther down Elm St. from where the Z313 impact occurred.
Continuation of weekly publication throughout the month of November will be done until virtually all aspects of the third shot impact (aka "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"/aka the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET") have been presented.
Tom Purvis
P.S. For those who are already on the "distribution list", you will continue to receive your copy of each weekly publishing.
P.P.S. For Mr. Mack. Although the copies have yet to be made, you/The Sixth Floor Museum, can count on having a full-sized copy of the Warren Commission Survey Plat in hand by the first week of November as well.
Although most unlikely that too many will either accept or believe it, the first publishing (in The George County Times) related to the third shot/aka the "Magic Bullet", is now of record.
This 4-page publishing is the beginning of revelation of the simple facts and (factual) truths related to the shots fired in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Each weekly publishing throughout the month of November will contain essential information relative to this (the "Magic Bullet)/the last shot fired in the assassination event, with the November 16th (additional 4-page) publishing containing the most relevant of this information.
Tom
P.S. When one takes into consideration the amount of pure BS which has surrounded this subject matter, even I would not believe this either.
Mailing goes out today of an additional 4-pager which will undoubtedly shed considerable light and knowledge on the simple aspects of the assassination. (at least for those who do not visualize multiple assassins & other mythological creatures)
For the few who prefer to deal with fact, the "Sixth Floor Museum" is now in possession of some 68 full-page publishings which effectively present the facts of each of the three shots fired.
As well as some presentations about how smoke has been blown and the wool has been pulled.
Hopefully, the museum will make this available to anyone who has interest in "facts", and since they are also in possession of copies of survey plats, it would be well worth a visit, even if a return visit, to see exactly what the hell this is in fact all about.
Who knows, one may in fact learn something, or if nothing else at least get a few laughs at my expense.
And, believe me, it has been "expensive"!
Tom
-
Is this right?
the so called pristine bullet lodged itself backwards in JFK with a portion continuing on.
The second bullet fragmented 312-313.
The third lodged in Connalys leg and disappeared.
Closer than most!
1. CE399 penetrated only a short distance (base-first). Striking the right transverse process of the C7 vertebrae in a base-first attitude, this sheared a 4.5mm width lead protrusion(which had squeezed out the bullet base) from the base of the bullet.
The lead core protrusion exited the anterior throat of JFK and is responsible for the small anterior throat wound.
The lead core protursion was recovered and is one of those fragments found in CE840, which by the way, weighed 0.9 grains.
(P.S.) It is no coincidence that the "punch-type" back wound of JFK measured 4mm X 7mm, and the deformed(flat) base to CE399 also measured 4mm X 7mm.
Just as it is no coincidence that a portion of the copper jacket base to CE399 was removed at some point while this bullet was in the National Archives.
The copper jacket base to this bullet contained "impact damage" created as a result of impact with a bone of the vertebral column, as well as having a "raised" edge completely around the perimeter of the bullet base.
Which edge could have been created ONLY by the bullet having passed through a material of such density that it litterally "stretched" the copper jacket backwards.
(P.P.S) The "abrasion collar" of the back wound (as determined by the HSCA as being located at the bottom edge of he wound of penetration, is merely the result of the end-over-end tumbling of the bullet as it struck JFK in the back.
Thereby creating this (direct contradiction to normal ballistics) abrasion collar at the bottom of the wound penetration as opposed to being located at the top of the wound pentration.
(P.P.P.S) The back wound of JFK has it's longest axis (7mm wide) in the horizontal, as opposed to the normal downward striking of a bullet, which causes the longest axis to be in the verticle.
(P.P.P.P.S) The reason for the "punch-type" penetrations through the coat; inner liner of the coat; and shirt worn by JFK is merely a result of the bullet striking with it's "flat-base" forward. Which, not unlike a paper-punch, punched out the fabric from the items of clothing.
(P.P.P.P.P.S) Which, also, contradictory to normal ballistic fact, also carried considerable fabric from the clothing down into the wound of entry into the back of JfK.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That should sufficiently explain why Dr. Humes could insert his finger, as well as (later) a stainless steel probe down into the back entry wound of JFK, without the lprobe (or his finger) finding any pathway for the bullet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As far as the second shot (which happens to be the Z312/313 impact, this is the "cowlick" entry which the HSCA found.
Due to a variety of reasons, this bullet (abnormally) fragmented and the fragments passed through the upper area of the parietal lobe of the brain of JFK, creating immense damage.
And, just as stated by JBC's Parkland Dr. a fragment from this bullet "escaped" and is responsible for the wrist wound of JBC.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now! Onward to the true "MAGIC BULLET" (the one that pulled the disappearing act)
First off, this bullet struck JFK in the head also.
JFK was approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z312/313 impact when this bullet struck.
And, since I am neither smarter than, nor more qualified than the elements of the SS and FBI, this also happens to be the impact location which each of these government agencies determined as the third shot impact, and so noted on their respective survey plats. (SS--12/5/63)--(FBI--2/7/64)
Which happens to have struck at survey stationing 4+95. (as opposed to stationing 4+65.3 for the Z313 impact)
Now! After having penetrated through JFK's head (having struck in the EOP region of the skull, the bullet exited JFK's head in an area of which considerable damage already existed from the Z312/313 impact.
The INTACT bullet thereafter continued on (downwards) to strike JBC in the right shoulder as he lay across the jump seats with his head in Nellie's lab, thereby exposing his shoulder and back to the flight of the bullet as well as the cerebral tissue which was blown forward from the head of JFK.
And, as they say, now you know the rest of the story:
Being:
Why JBC's coat got washed and laundered, as the back of the coat would have been covered with cerebral tissue, which could not have occurred with the Z313 impact as a result of the back of the jump seat would have prevented cerebral tissue from having been blown forward and striking all over the back of JBC's coat.
As well as, the bullet penetration into JBC's back was elongated slightly to the horizontal.---Which the WC attempted to blame on a bullet that was "yawing".
When, one places JBC leaned over across the jump seats, then the elongaged horizontal wound of entry now becomes a correctly oriented downward wound of entry that is in fact elongated vertically, as it should be.
The bullet then, of course, penetrated throuogh the chest of JBC and exited to thereafter enter his leg.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But, then again, this may in fact be more than one wants to know about the FACTS of the assassination, as it certainly puts a crimp in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza.
Tom.
P.S. It is all now a matter of "published record", of which The JFK Assassination Museum" is now in possession. (along with a few others who appear to be quite adept at understanding simple facts.)
-
Nice one, Bill!
Which, demonsrates exactly why you (as well as many others) are absolutely "nowhere" on the subject matter.
Don't suppose that any light bulbs actually came on and illuminated the extremely high possibility/probability that someone in a position to "know", just may have been directing LHO as to what to do, where and when??????
Sure as hell would have thought that some of those whose brain is relatively well eaten up with the "conspiracy bug", would have recognized that even in this day of the internet, LHO would have had difficulty in location of all of the "false scents" that he left, which also lead to so many false trails for those such as yourself to folllow.
Considerable difference between being a "lone nut", and a "lone assassin".
The first means that one is relatively "squirrely", which could also apply to the great majority of JFK (purported) researchers.
The second merely means that one is the only person involved in the actual deed. It does not negate the possibility that one was not involved in some sort of conspiracy which ultimately lead to the event.
If, and when the true researchers come to recognize the difference, then they will also recognize he importance of LHO's "past life" in New Orleans.
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with your position. Are you saying you believe that although Oswald was part of a wider conspiracy, he was the lone gunman?
In all due respect, obviously, if that's what you believe, such a stance must be burdensome for you to maintain. I know that we must disagree on what the physical evidence indicates, whereby I believe that the physical evidence precludes a lone assassin and you apparently do not. In my view, maintaining the position that the evidence is consistent with a single gunman is precarious, at best. I don't envy you your task of defending such an unlikely, even impossible, argument. If I have misunderstood you, my apologies.
Unfortunately, due to the elapse of time and loss of direct information from participants (due to deaths), we will never know:
1. After failure to get into Cuba, was LHO directed to JFK instead?
2. After failure to get into Cuba, did LHO take it entirely upon himself to shoot JFK for his role in prevention of LHO gaining a big paycheck?
3. Was LHO merely the (willing) "designated rabbit" in a much larger conspiracy plan?
4. Was LHO merely the (unwitting) "designated rabbit"* in a much larger conspiracy plan?
*For the record, an "unwitting" rabbit is certainly cutting his own nuts off by killing a police officer in his attempted escape.
Unless of course that police officer is for more of an "unwitting" accomplice than is the designated rabbit.
P.S. I don't envy you your task of defending such an unlikely, even impossible, argument."
Actually, the "Lone Shooter" is not that difficult to defend:--------With forensic; ballistic; patholigacal, and physical fact.
As far as anything which I personally have to say, it is, and will remain "opinion", of which even I sometimes have difficulty accepting and/or believing.
Ask around of those who have been on the "distribution list" since day one.
One just may be suprised as to how factually simple the aspects of the assassination actually are.
-
Nice one, Bill!
Which, demonsrates exactly why you (as well as many others) are absolutely "nowhere" on the subject matter.
Don't suppose that any light bulbs actually came on and illuminated the extremely high possibility/probability that someone in a position to "know", just may have been directing LHO as to what to do, where and when??????
Sure as hell would have thought that some of those whose brain is relatively well eaten up with the "conspiracy bug", would have recognized that even in this day of the internet, LHO would have had difficulty in location of all of the "false scents" that he left, which also lead to so many false trails for those such as yourself to folllow.
Considerable difference between being a "lone nut", and a "lone assassin".
The first means that one is relatively "squirrely", which could also apply to the great majority of JFK (purported) researchers.
The second merely means that one is the only person involved in the actual deed. It does not negate the possibility that one was not involved in some sort of conspiracy which ultimately lead to the event.
If, and when the true researchers come to recognize the difference, then they will also recognize he importance of LHO's "past life" in New Orleans.
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with your position. Are you saying you believe that although Oswald was part of a wider conspiracy, he was the lone gunman?
In all due respect, obviously, if that's what you believe, such a stance must be burdensome for you to maintain. I know that we must disagree on what the physical evidence indicates, whereby I believe that the physical evidence precludes a lone assassin and you apparently do not. In my view, maintaining the position that the evidence is consistent with a single gunman is precarious, at best. I don't envy you your task of defending such an unlikely, even impossible, argument. If I have misunderstood you, my apologies.
Unfortunately, due to the elapse of time and loss of direct information from participants (due to deaths), we will never know:
1. After failure to get into Cuba, was LHO directed to JFK instead?
2. After failure to get into Cuba, did LHO take it entirely upon himself to shoot JFK for his role in prevention of LHO gaining a big paycheck?
3. Was LHO merely the (willing) "designated rabbit" in a much larger conspiracy plan?
4. Was LHO merely the (unwitting) "designated rabbit"* in a much larger conspiracy plan?
*For the record, an "unwitting" rabbit is certainly cutting his own nuts off by killing a police officer in his attempted escape.
Unless of course that police officer is for more of an "unwitting" accomplice than is the designated rabbit.
-
Yup.
All of which just may shed additional light on exactly why LHO refused to attend school in NYC when his mother moved there temporarily.
As well as why his mother fully supported his skipping school.
P.S.
Persons in these positions have the firm ability to convince those such as LHO to be a "rabbit" or a "rabbit hunter".
In regards to his attempts to get into Cuba, one can be assured that LHO was attempting to go there to be the latter!
P.P.S. There were numerous Model 91/38 (6.5mm version) as well as Model 38 (7.35mm version) rifles (along with ammunition) still available in Cuba as they were utilized by numerous of the free-lance "freedom fighters" who fought for Castro.
Since Castro had long prior imposed rules against (BYOR)/(Bring Your Own Rifle), if one wanted to insure experience with a Carcano, then they had best acquire one here in the US in order to practice with.
Then, since there is absolutely no difference in the two models (other than caliber_), one could assure that there would be a quality/accurate weapon available on the Island of which one was already experienced with.
But then again, what would I know about this kind of S**T?
-
That's great, Tom. Could you go over it one more time, please? Where are the bullets (and why are they where they are) ?
First off, it IS NOT "bullets"!
It was, is, and will always remain:-----------------------A single bullet!
Which, happens to also be the third/last/final shot fired in the assassination (and which IS NOT, and has never been, the Z313 impact)
Tom
P.S. Since John Connally is fully and firmly deceased and buried, then quite probably, that question should be posed to his son.
P.P.S. In event that you wish to believe that the approximately 5-inch long scar down on the left lower leg of JBC was where he purportedly cut his leg on a barbed wire fence as a child, then who am I to offer a completely different reason for this scar.
-
I agree completely with you Tom. I don't think I get it though. I keep on looking again and again at the Louisiana and Mississippi Sovereignty Councils and particularly at the White Camelias. There's a, to me, coherent theme there. But just speculation which seems to knit together into a simple coherent whole.
Is that another of the rabbit holes you often refer to?
Well! In addition to the fact that the Law Firm of which LHO's (great) Uncle was a member, lets take note:
1. It was through members of this law firm that Marguerite (as well as LHO) had the connections to various employment.
2. One member of this law firm was the "President" of the "Sons of the Confederacy"
3. One member of this law firm was connected to the 1954 Guatemala coup.
4. One member of this law firm had an Uncle who was killed in the first battle of the Civil War. Thereafter, family member were named "Malvern Hill"
5. One member of this law firm (same family as above) named family members "Sumpter", after the battle of Ft. Sumpter, SC.
6. Two early members of this law firm (to include the great Uncle) originally operated out of the old United Fruit Building in New Orleans.
7. One of the two above, frequently represented United Fruit.
8. One of the "early" founders of the law firm was a highly noted Commander (of a Louisiana Artillery Unit) in the Civil War.
9. This "Commander", had the honor of having Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, die in his home in New Orleans.
10. One of the Commander's sons defended Tulane in it's attempt to prevent integration of Tulane University (against the Kennedy imposed desegration orders).
11. One of the Commander's sons was the head of a New Orleans Stock Brockerage firm, which had offices in Havanna, Cuba, and which firm later merged with Merrill Lynch.
12. One member of the law firm was the legal representative for the "Parking Garage" where LHO applied for employment.
That should be a "good start" summary.
Tom
P.S. Forgot to mention LHO's mississippi cousin who was highly involved with the "Citizen's Council" of Mississippi and was instrumemental in attempting to prevent integration of the south Mississippi beaches.
Which was occurring at exactly the same time as LHO was attending Radar Operator training school at Keesler AFB, Biloxi, MS.
-
For those who are not gainfully occupied in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza and who have an actual interest in factual truths as well as documents which will ultimately be of some historical significance, the following information is provided:
Beginning with the first weekly publishing of the newspaper (for the month of November) "THE GEORGE COUNTY TIMES", the relatively simple facts of the third/last/final shot impact to the head of JFK will be published.
Additionaly, for those few who actually have interest in facts, this, the third/last/final shot IS NOT the Z312/313 impact. (which was the second shot).
The third/last/final shot impacted the head of JFK at approximately survey stationing 4+95, which happens to be almost 30-feet farther down Elm St. from where the Z313 impact occurred.
Continuation of weekly publication throughout the month of November will be done until virtually all aspects of the third shot impact (aka "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"/aka the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET") have been presented.
Tom Purvis
P.S. For those who are already on the "distribution list", you will continue to receive your copy of each weekly publishing.
P.P.S. For Mr. Mack. Although the copies have yet to be made, you/The Sixth Floor Museum, can count on having a full-sized copy of the Warren Commission Survey Plat in hand by the first week of November as well.
Although most unlikely that too many will either accept or believe it, the first publishing (in The George County Times) related to the third shot/aka the "Magic Bullet", is now of record.
This 4-page publishing is the beginning of revelation of the simple facts and (factual) truths related to the shots fired in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Each weekly publishing throughout the month of November will contain essential information relative to this (the "Magic Bullet)/the last shot fired in the assassination event, with the November 16th (additional 4-page) publishing containing the most relevant of this information.
Tom
P.S. When one takes into consideration the amount of pure BS which has surrounded this subject matter, even I would not believe this either.
Mailing goes out today of an additional 4-pager which will undoubtedly shed considerable light and knowledge on the simple aspects of the assassination. (at least for those who do not visualize multiple assassins & other mythological creatures)
-
Nice one, Bill!
Which, demonsrates exactly why you (as well as many others) are absolutely "nowhere" on the subject matter.
Don't suppose that any light bulbs actually came on and illuminated the extremely high possibility/probability that someone in a position to "know", just may have been directing LHO as to what to do, where and when??????
Sure as hell would have thought that some of those whose brain is relatively well eaten up with the "conspiracy bug", would have recognized that even in this day of the internet, LHO would have had difficulty in location of all of the "false scents" that he left, which also lead to so many false trails for those such as yourself to folllow.
Considerable difference between being a "lone nut", and a "lone assassin".
The first means that one is relatively "squirrely", which could also apply to the great majority of JFK (purported) researchers.
The second merely means that one is the only person involved in the actual deed. It does not negate the possibility that one was not involved in some sort of conspiracy which ultimately lead to the event.
If, and when the true researchers come to recognize the difference, then they will also recognize he importance of LHO's "past life" in New Orleans.
-
The Houston/Elm WIDE turn, Truly & Towner
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Personally:
If it carries any weight, I would go for the "fishy"!