Thomas H. Purvis

Since anything which is "MAGIC" would also have little difficulty in accomplishing a disappearing act, and neither CE399 nor the fragments (CE567 & CE569) managed to achieve this action, then one just may want to concentrate on the bullet that did actually manage to achieve (if only temporarily) a complete disappearance. Yep! I do believe that you fully understand the cryptics of the conversation. Tom P.S. Latest publication went out today in the mail!

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.

1) You believe that improperly prepared medical evidence trumps properly prepared medical evidence. 2) That the 15+ people who described the back wound as consistent with T3 all suffered the same mis-perception. 3) The real kicker: that multiple inches of JFK shirt fabric, multiple inches of JFK's jacket fabric, and JFK's jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time in order to line the bullet holes in the clothing with a SBT neck entry. Have fun demonstrating #3, TP. Might I recommend a subscription to "THE GEORGE COUNTY TIMES", which beginning in the first week of November and continueing throughout the month, will (attempt*) to explain a few of these items to you, along with a few of the facts related to the one and only true "Magic Bullet". *"It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man" William G. McAdoo

Garrison Investigation==========Circus + (circle) Jerk!-----, which by the way, only a complete idiot would have fallen for. But then again, there is the added advantage of having spent considerable time (as well as money) in New Orleans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

Some questions if I may Tom... 1. How do you rate your own objectivity against others in this case on a scale of 1 to 10? 2. Why, in 1967, would anyone need to divert attention away from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans." 3. Why, as the documentary evidence indicates, did the FBI and CIA seek to scuttle Garrison's investigation, when the CIA in particular, have historically sought to protect the types of "land sharks" and "aristocracy" aka big business that you say were using Garrison as a "diversion"? ==================================================================================================================== That remains about one of the most "open-ended" questions one could ask. "others" could include anyone from those who are sufficiently ignorant enough to accept and believe the Warren Commission, to those who believe that the Warren Commission was a lie, yet are sufficiently ignorant enough to fall for and believe in such mythical creatures as multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration specialists. Along with I might add, the concept that about every government agency as well as organized crime were all in this together. Black really is white? It is not an open ended question at all. It is in fact the exact opposite, Tom. I had a particular reason for asking based on an exchange we had a few years back in which you tried every which way to avoid reality. Because LHO was from NO. This was his home as well as the location of about the only persons whom he knew and trusted. Which would have included the only ones who could have dragged him into this event. That doesn't answer the question. Why in 1967 did these powerful individuals need to divert attention away from who Oswald was? Why not in 1964 or 1966 or 1970? As far as I can tell, there was no reason that made that year in particular, a year that needed a diversion from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was" The "oxymoron" here is that many believe that the FBI as well as the CIA were firmlly involved in the assassination of JFK. Yet, to have done so would mean that they were so efficient that no one to date could tie (absolutelyl) either to the event. As others have pointed out, that is little, if any, evidence to support your claim here. And, yet, these two government agencies were so impotent that they could not do anything about the great "Jimbo" Garrison and his crusade for the truth? Give me a break! His office was infiltrated and his case was sabotaged and he lost the case. My own belief is that he would have lost the case against Shaw anyway, but potentially exposed Oswald's ties to intelligence agencies. The great "Jimbo" Garrison lead many off into the "dismal" swamp, and thereafter abandoned them to flounder like fools in the garbage that he had concocted into his assassination scenario. Jimbo! You did one hell of a good job there! You have the reason for Garrison's case as being a diversion from Oswald's real background... what you haven't given is any reason why that was necessary in 1967. The reality is that Garrison's case was white-anted by the CIA to prevent Garrison finding any links between Oswald and that agency, and to stop any other "National Security" information from getting out. Read "Cuba". You have done some great work on NO angles, but you refuse to look beyond familial and other non-spooky relationships to see the extensive ties between the people you've named and (in particular) the CIA. And the answer is: 1. LHO was definitely and definitively being "processed" by someone, for some reason. 2. A complete study of the activities of LHO will lead one to believe that these activities were ultimately directed at getting him into Cuba, and in all probability for the purpose of assassination of Fidel Castro. 3. When all plans to get into Cuba fell flat, LHO's direction turned to JFK. Now! The remaining questions being, did those (in New Orleans) who were directing the activities of LHO in regards to a potential assassination of Castro, thereafter change his target to JFK, or did LHO go "rogue" and take this action upon himself as an act of vengence for his "time in service" expended/wasted in attempt to get to Castro. Either way, it constitutes the old "incoming, run for cover" for those who were behind/directing the actions of LHO up to and including his Mexico trip. For the "official record", Garrison was merely another of those who was convinced (by those who placed him in the position to begin with) to launch the completely preposterous "Clay Shaw" trial. He (Garrison) most certainly knew little about LHO and his true/factual activities. And, he (Garrison) most certainly avoided any "finger-pointing" at those who were in fact in position to manipulage/guide LHO into such a scheme. In that regards, one can rest assured that a whole lot of people working at 321 St. Charles in New Orleans, were not too happy when Castro confiscated all of their holdings.

Some questions if I may Tom... 1. How do you rate your own objectivity against others in this case on a scale of 1 to 10? 2. Why, in 1967, would anyone need to divert attention away from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans." 3. Why, as the documentary evidence indicates, did the FBI and CIA seek to scuttle Garrison's investigation, when the CIA in particular, have historically sought to protect the types of "land sharks" and "aristocracy" aka big business that you say were using Garrison as a "diversion"? ==================================================================================================================== That remains about one of the most "open-ended" questions one could ask. "others" could include anyone from those who are sufficiently ignorant enough to accept and believe the Warren Commission, to those who believe that the Warren Commission was a lie, yet are sufficiently ignorant enough to fall for and believe in such mythical creatures as multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration specialists. Along with I might add, the concept that about every government agency as well as organized crime were all in this together. Because LHO was from NO. This was his home as well as the location of about the only persons whom he knew and trusted. Which would have included the only ones who could have dragged him into this event. The "oxymoron" here is that many believe that the FBI as well as the CIA were firmlly involved in the assassination of JFK. Yet, to have done so would mean that they were so efficient that no one to date could tie (absolutelyl) either to the event. And, yet, these two government agencies were so impotent that they could not do anything about the great "Jimbo" Garrison and his crusade for the truth? Give me a break! The great "Jimbo" Garrison lead many off into the "dismal" swamp, and thereafter abandoned them to flounder like fools in the garbage that he had concocted into his assassination scenario. Jimbo! You did one hell of a good job there!

Really? Demonstrated by whom? Whomever it was that shot JFK from the sixth floor of the TSDB!

I'd like to stick my two cents in here as well. Without a bullet track through the body, there is no PROOF of a transiting bullet. A metal-jacketed bullet would have transited the body and left its track through the body. But when the prosectors tried to probe the back wound, the probe would not go through ( Boswell testimony to ARRB ). For the SBT to be REAL, that probe should have come out the throat wound. It didn't. That tells me that the wounds weren't made with any military-type ammunition and the SBT is nothing but BS. "That tells me that the wounds weren't made with any military-type ammunition" NOPE! Merely tells that the bullet that struck only penetrated a short distance.-----Something that has been documented and known for a long, long time. "and the SBT is nothing but BS." Actually, the SBT is a demonstrated fact. Just that CE399 IS NOT the SBT.

Irrelevant as to who we are, we are all subject to the "tunnel vision" which can often occur from concentration on a single object. The possibility of the "wheel strike" which originated with yourself, demonstrated this to all who will take it into consideration and give it the merit which it deserves.

AND, THE ANSWER IS (or at least includes): (1). Lack of ability to properly research exactly who and what Garrison was. (2). Grasping for any straw of "conspiracy", which Garrison fully expoused and promoted. (3). Lack of ability to research all of those whom Garrison attempted to "tie" into the big/giant conspiracy. (4). It promotes the BS theory that some giant conspiracy existed which included almost everyone with the possible exception of you and me. (5).__________________________________fill in the blank with whatever assinine theory and/or concept one can think of. And if 1-5 are true in your mind would they have still existed if he'd have been backed by certain Governmental Institutions rather than scuppered by them every single step of the way? Step off the narrow minded soap box for half an hour. What would your work look like if you were undermined in a thousand different ways? If everyone was out to get you? If your offices were bugged? If your family was threatened? If you were offered bribes? If people you were relying on to support you were murdered? That is what comes from an "overdose" of watching the movie JFK far too many times, to the extent that one begins to think it is actual reality. Why not include: If you set up a completely phony investigative service in which your company could charge up large amounts while investigating the death of JFK!!! Why, Thomas, how many times have I watched Stone's JFK? Sufficient number to gullibly believe it! Unknown as to whether this took 1 or 25 viewings. I await your reply. And how many times have I read Joan Mellen's and Jim DiEugenio's books? Same answer as above, merely that it applies to reading ability (as opposed to reading/comprehension ability) rather than visual stimuli. As long ago posted on this forum, the Garrison Investigation was a pure "smoke screen" in which the intention was (and pretty well succeeded) in diversion of attention of exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans. The "land sharks" most certainly baited a lot of dumb-assess into chasing the Garrison Investigation and it's completely worthless concepts. Of course, it also got Clay Shaw out of their hair as well.

Tom, I am quite weary of all this, but am glad at least you agree with me that the autopsy photo on the neck does not represent Perry's incision. I consider that a major concession, and thank you for it.Best, Daniel but am glad at least you agree with me that the autopsy photo on the neck does not represent Perry's incision. I consider that a major concession, and thank you for it.Best You will most likely want to publish a "retraction" on that thank you. I do believe the statement was that the autopsy photograph did not demonstrate the tracheotomy incision that Dr. Perry made. Which stands as correct. The initial tracheotomy incision (attempt) was a relatively small cut. Other than that, one can be assured that Dr. Perry was ultimately responsible for and created the anterior throat incision as seen in the "stare of death" autopsy photograph. No "boogymen; body snatchers; and/or wound alteration specialists. Along with, I might add, no falsified/altered, etc; autopsy photographs. Tom, in the previous post, I said I was weary of all this. Well I was very tired last night; I have been working on math problems today strangely as a result feel quite energetic at the moment. So I amend my statement: "..this appears to be a major concession..." You are a hard one to pin down, and enjoy playing a kind of cat and mouse game. Fine with me. Logically, if the autopsy photos have not been altered, then either the body was, or Perry made the large incision we see in the stare of death photo. There are no other alternatives. So it is not difficult to see why you think it was the work of Perry. I think later in his life Perry said it was the work of Perry. There you have it, QED as we say in mathematics. Where's the beef? etc. But as you well know, this is not a retraction, but a veiled challenge to prove your point. May I say, that your claim that the initial incision was a relatively small cut, is to me a major concession, and I thank you for it. Best, Daniel "or Perry made the large incision we see in the stare of death photo." If one looks hard enough, they just may find a "factual truth" in what is often a confusing question and/or answer. The initial "trach" incision was, as one would expect, a relatively small incision. Unfortunately, this did not resolve the problem of the "foamy" blood which appeared around the initial wound area. Those whom are/were on the "distribution list" for the newspaper publishing relative to "THE ANTERIOR THROAT WOUND", may (or may not) wish to have additional input into this subject matter. However, since I long ago explained the majority of it here on this forum, and am tired of repetitive answering of questions relative to this subject, might I recommend a trip to The Sixth Floor Museum, if, and when, the Museum gets around to posting the facts for all to see; evaluate; and pick apart if they so wish. Tom P.S. In event that it is of consolation, Dr. Humes also questioned the rationale/reasoning for the large (gutted) incision of the anterior throat. And, since the answer sufficiently satisfied him, one can rest assured that I too am willing to accept it as factually correct.

Unfortunately! Haley happened to be one of those "far right" individuals of whom many believe had something to do with the ultimate act. His complete disdain and dislike for LBJ is a matter of published record. Not suprisingly, history has now shown that this opinion was far closer to correct, than it was to being incorrect.

And, as unusual as it may appear, I fully concur with your assessment of the photo and the additional possibilities which this assessment adds into the equation.

AND, THE ANSWER IS (or at least includes): (1). Lack of ability to properly research exactly who and what Garrison was. (2). Grasping for any straw of "conspiracy", which Garrison fully expoused and promoted. (3). Lack of ability to research all of those whom Garrison attempted to "tie" into the big/giant conspiracy. (4). It promotes the BS theory that some giant conspiracy existed which included almost everyone with the possible exception of you and me. (5).__________________________________fill in the blank with whatever assinine theory and/or concept one can think of. And if 1-5 are true in your mind would they have still existed if he'd have been backed by certain Governmental Institutions rather than scuppered by them every single step of the way? Step off the narrow minded soap box for half an hour. What would your work look like if you were undermined in a thousand different ways? If everyone was out to get you? If your offices were bugged? If your family was threatened? If you were offered bribes? If people you were relying on to support you were murdered? That is what comes from an "overdose" of watching the movie JFK far too many times, to the extent that one begins to think it is actual reality. Why not include: If you set up a completely phony investigative service in which your company could charge up large amounts while investigating the death of JFK!!!

Steve; "It is my belief that these signatures were not made by the same person, but at least one other." Without going into any great detail (which ultimately can not be proven and/or disproven), there was another who signed "Oswald" virtually identical to how LHO signed his last name. Unfortunately, there are unsufficient examples in which to compare and make an absolute determination. Tom P.S. If of any merit, "handwriting analysis" was also one of those brief courses of instruction which were taken (given) by the Question Documents Division of the FBI.

AND, THE ANSWER IS (or at least includes): (1). Lack of ability to properly research exactly who and what Garrison was. (2). Grasping for any straw of "conspiracy", which Garrison fully expoused and promoted. (3). Lack of ability to research all of those whom Garrison attempted to "tie" into the big/giant conspiracy. (4). It promotes the BS theory that some giant conspiracy existed which included almost everyone with the possible exception of you and me. (5).__________________________________fill in the blank with whatever assinine theory and/or concept one can think of.

Actually! One can learn much from the testimonies of those such as James Tague who were in positions which had little if any sound distortions. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tague.htm Mr. TAGUE. Well, I was standing there watching, and really I was watching to try to distinguish the President and his car. About this time I heard what sounded like a firecracker. Well, a very loud firecracker. It certainly didn't sound like a rifleshot. It was more of a loud cannon-type sound. I looked around to see who was throwing firecrackers or what was going on and I turned my head away from the motorcade and, of course, two more shots.And I ducked behind the post when I realized somebody was shooting after the third shot. After the third shot, I ducked behind the bridge abutment and was there for a second, and I glanced out and Just as I looked out, the car following the President's car, the one with the Secret Service men, was just flying past at that time. Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, "You have blood there on your cheek." That is when we walked back down there. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark? Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face? Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did. Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did? Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did. Mr. LIEBELER. How many? Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots? Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29. ==================================================== Now! Since the reality is that there was in fact only one bullet which actually fragmented/aka the one which impacted to the head of JFK as the SECOND SHOT at the Z313 impact, this truly does not require a great amount of investigatory ability to determine exactly which bullet sent a fragment of limited velocity into the direction of James Tague. Regardless of whether he was hit by a missed bullet that hit the curb or a bullet fragment that hit the curb, Tague was still a vicim of the same person(s) who killed JFK. Since his wound drew blood, he would have qualified for a purple heart if wounded in combat. And he is a living victim of the same people who killed JFK, and thus he stands a head and shoulders above other witnesses in the eyes of the law. BK If one were to consider all of the possibilities*, then they whould include: (1)-----Direct impact to the cheek of one of the small fragments from the Z313 impact to the head of JFK. The fragment of which would have had an extremely limited velocity by the time that it reached & struck Tague. (2)-----Richochet of a fragment which struck some area of potential concrete first, prior to glancing off to ultimately strike Tague. (3)-----A fragment striking some area of concrete with sufficient energies to fragment off a small piece of the concrete, which itself is ultimately responsible for flying up and striking Tague on the cheek. *Excludes all reference to multiple assassins as well as any shot other than the Z313 headshot as having been ultimately responsible for the "Tague" hit. None of which will one ever be able to prove and/or disprove.

For all participants in the annual "running of the squirrels" in Dallas on/or about November 22, 2011, might want to "run" by the Sixth Floor Museum. Mr. Mack, you will receive a copy of the full-sized Warren Commission survey plat well prior to the above date, in order that the Museum can, if they so wish, have it on display during the annual event. Just do not allow any of the "squirrels" to chew on it. Tom P.S. I will make comments on it after it is officially sent.

Tom, I am quite weary of all this, but am glad at least you agree with me that the autopsy photo on the neck does not represent Perry's incision. I consider that a major concession, and thank you for it.Best, Daniel but am glad at least you agree with me that the autopsy photo on the neck does not represent Perry's incision. I consider that a major concession, and thank you for it.Best You will most likely want to publish a "retraction" on that thank you. I do believe the statement was that the autopsy photograph did not demonstrate the tracheotomy incision that Dr. Perry made. Which stands as correct. The initial tracheotomy incision (attempt) was a relatively small cut. Other than that, one can be assured that Dr. Perry was ultimately responsible for and created the anterior throat incision as seen in the "stare of death" autopsy photograph. No "boogymen; body snatchers; and/or wound alteration specialists. Along with, I might add, no falsified/altered, etc; autopsy photographs.

Have fun demonstrating #3, TP Well! Since the "butterfly" pattern of blood found on the back of the shirt worn by JFK clearly demonstrataes that a "fold" existed in his shirt at the time that this blood stain became embedded within the shirt, that too is not that difficult. Guess that you "garmet experts" just do not have the experience with the Rorscach Tests that others of us have or else you would have caught on to the simplicity of proving this long ago. OHHHHHHHH! So difficult. P.S. As an again reminder, each and every one of the three autopsy surgeons agreed that the wound of the upper back/shoulder, was superior to the clavicle. In event that, as a purported "garmet expert", you wish to base your knowledge (or lack thereof) of this wound location on statements by those who never laid their hands on JFK's body, then who am I to debate your right to demonstrate such ignorance.

Could you ask him about this sending Che' off because he was too idealistic? Don't have to! The research paper which I long ago did on Che, entitled "The Bolivian Campaign" is a matter of recorded history. Along with all of the references; interviews;etc. As one who once served in Panama, to include attendance at the Jungle Survival School as operated by the 8th Special Forces Group, availabity to those who had "been there done that" was not a restriction to a Special Forces Officer who was conduting research into a failed gurrilla operation. Tom P.S. Since I do not personally know Fidel, would it suffice if I spoke with his cousin "Cecilia Cruz de Castro", who was once (long ago) a personal friend and acquaintance? By all standards of guerilla warfare, Che Guevara was virtually a complete failure. Fully granted that he had "great" ideals, for which he should be remembered. And, had he been able to compromise some of those ideals for the reality of what actually was, then he just may have managed to achieve something other than getting himself and a lot of others killed. One could go on and on about the failures of Che. But,since that research paper was written long ago, with the assistance of some personal diaries and memories, it is neither my intention or desire to debate the factually proven issues of his failure as a guerilla leader. If, and when, the JFK Special Warfare Center declassifies much of the information relative to Che's "Bolivian Campaign", then those who have an interest in factually correct history may change, or at least correct some of the incorrect information which many have been lead to believe regarding his purported ability as a guerilla leader.

Dp not know exactly what is going on with the (attempted) posting of responses. However, the latest response is as follows: If what you say is true, Gary Mack, it would seem would have produced his argument long ago, Since he only received the information a short while back, this too would be unlikely. And, since (hopefully) the Sixth Floor Museum is ultimately going to present ALL of the factual evidence in a single presentation, exactly why would one want to merely let one cat out of the bag when one just may have a bag that is full of cats? By the way, "newspaper writeup?" I would expect a scholarly journal When taken into consideration that you quite apparantly believe the "fictional" tale of body snatchers and wound alteration specialists, then one could be lead to believe that you would believe anything that is "conspiracy" oriented. Perhaps even if written on a well-used after dinner napkin! And,by the way, were I so naive of the actually facts that I "world-wide" inserted my foot into my mouth by posting that I actually believed ANY of the "body snatch/wound alteration" theory, then rest assured that I too would go to my grave claiming the factuality of this (completely assinine) theory. Prove to me the autopsy pictures accurately depict the trach incision Perry made and who told Lifton early on that its width was 2-3 cm Since the autopsy photograph does not in fact demonstrate the "trach incision Perry made", then it would be most difficult to prove something which is factually "not factual". Tom P.S. In order to get the correct answer, it always helps if one actually ask's the correct question!

As one of the most prolific of the promoters of the "lone assassin/lone shooter" concept: Beyond absolutely any reasonable doubt, LHO was engaged in conspiratorial activities which ultimately lead to the assassination of JFK. The only question being: Did the conspiracy itself turn to JFK as it's target? Or, did LHO go "rogue" and thereafter take it upon himself to become the true "lone nut assassin" as protrayed. Neither of which is likely to ever be sufficiently answered this many years after the event when most trails and involved persons are now deceased.

"Oh, we were all so innocent back then!" Just perhaps the appropriate terminology would be "we were all so ignorant back then", just in case one actually believed and fell for the "Greer shot JFK" smoke screen