Thomas H. Purvis
-
Posts
5,073 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thomas H. Purvis
-
-
Castro himself acknowledges that at the time Kennedys AFP was the only real threat to the fledgling sovereignty of Cuba.
Interestingly when Chancellor Erhardt viswited LBJ in late Dec 63 ( with Ewald Peters ... ) LBJ by contemporary accounts practically ordered the West Germans to focus more on Latin/South America so that the US could committ further into Indo China. I've always thought the Germans, the French and the US of the times were not necessarily automatically beholden to each other so the Chancelors apparent obeisance to this somewhat rudely put demand could be indicative of something. There was friction between the Germans and the French and the US went from funding the French to unleashing its own war there. . Now if the Germans did follow through on this where can one find evidence of it? Argentina? Bolivia?...?
And yet!
Ernesto "Che" Guevara was sufficiently ignorant of exactly how much effect agrarian reform played in his total failure in Bolivia.
To chose a country in which reform had taken place as a good target for a revolution of the people, is not in keeping with the concepts fostered in Cuba.
Tom, I wonder. The campesinos were wary of associating with Che's forces for a number of reasons, though not all of them. Partly the miners who struck and were massacred. A number sought him out. The US implemented a program to succeed where they failed in the Congo (where Che' also saw failure) of training and supervising and gathering intelligence to locate him. He was heading away from the Miners and towards what may have led him back to Argentina. For Che, failure was not ultimately defined by death but by no one picking up his rifle when he fell.
That did not happen.
What did happen was that he was extra-judicially murdered and his body and that of his comrades disppeared.
This was to ensure he could not mount a defence in the eyes of the world and this would not have happened if the situation for the dictatorships had not been so precarious.
In parts of Bolivia and latin south america he's today even treated as a saint, and he is a symbol to freedom fighters the world over so one cannot say that he failed at all. He died at the hands of cowards under orders by forces that certainly had no interests in the welfare of the Bolivian people. Whatever reform there may have been must have been token and in place simply to lessen support for the Idea of Cuba, a sovereign nation not under the yoke of yankee imperialism. In fact the events further bolsters the premise of this thread that agrarian reform implementation is a crucial point in the battle between capitalism and socialism.
In the "Bolivian Campaign", Che was a complete failure.
He apparantly learned little from Castro, and in fact, in Bolivia, for the most part only managed to recruit criminals; thieves; etc.
And, as a principal failure, he failed to enduce the communists elements to support his activities in any way.
Che sought the limelight and allowed a variety of persons into his camp, who photographed and reported the identity of most of his force, as well as continually reporting his whereabouts.
Add to this the fact that his asthma had afflicted him so badly that he often had to ride a mule. (in direct contradiction to his own published doctrine regarding the reguirements for health on the part of a guerrilla fighter.
Factually, a good grouping of today's boy scouts could have chased him down and done him in as a result of all of his own failure to follow the published doctrine which he was famous for.
The Bolivian Ranger Unit which ultimately tracked him down was of course an "Elite" unit of the Bolivian Army.
However, factually, it was not that elite.
The termination of Che and subsequent clandestine burial location was little more (if not the same) as that received by Bin Laden, and was meant to avoid the inherent "Martyr" following.
If Che was such a great fighter for the "people", one has to wonder exactly why it was that the "people" were among those who were constantly reporting his location(s)
to government authorities.
Che was a complete "idealist" and could not bring himself around to accepting the realities of the human species and therefore maintained little control over his own supposed fighting forces.
This "idealism" is why Castro sent him off (away from Cuba) to begin with.
-
Castro himself acknowledges that at the time Kennedys AFP was the only real threat to the fledgling sovereignty of Cuba.
Interestingly when Chancellor Erhardt viswited LBJ in late Dec 63 ( with Ewald Peters ... ) LBJ by contemporary accounts practically ordered the West Germans to focus more on Latin/South America so that the US could committ further into Indo China. I've always thought the Germans, the French and the US of the times were not necessarily automatically beholden to each other so the Chancelors apparent obeisance to this somewhat rudely put demand could be indicative of something. There was friction between the Germans and the French and the US went from funding the French to unleashing its own war there. . Now if the Germans did follow through on this where can one find evidence of it? Argentina? Bolivia?...?
And yet!
Ernesto "Che" Guevara was sufficiently ignorant of exactly how much effect agrarian reform played in his total failure in Bolivia.
To chose a country in which reform had taken place as a good target for a revolution of the people, is not in keeping with the concepts fostered in Cuba.
-
deleted double...oopsDaniel here is information from a thread on the forum, you may be interested in...b
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&st=165
Bernice, as long as we are bringing up interesting tidbits, there is this exchange between Tom Robinson and Andrew Purdy for the HSCA:
Purdy:... you just said you saw the tracheotomy
Robinson: Well, it was a tracheotomy, it was sort of nasty-looking.
As I have indicated to Mr. Purvis, the look of the trach incision at Bethesda is a true smoking gun in the case. None of the early descriptions of the trach incision Perry made called in "nasty."
Then later, once the work of embalming was finished:
Purdy: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple and the big one in the back?
Robinson: That's all.
Comment: What incompetence of Robinson! Didn't he know there was also a sizeable piece of the parietal missing, found by Harper and identified as... oops, occipital, by Dr. Cairns?
Now so there is no mistake about matters, Purdy again:
Purdy: Do you think it was possible in your professional experience that there were no other significant wounds of the head?
Robinson: Oh yes, we would have found that.
Then there are these tidbits from an article by Michael Griffith on the ARRB contributions.
1. Stringer reported to the HSCA that the throat wound was probed, and from the front, the probe went downward, according to Robert Knudsen, just as Kemp Clark indicated to the New York Times, that the bullet hit Kennedy from the front, ranged downward, and did not exit.
2. Saundra Kay Spencer told the ARRB she did not process any of the extant photos even though she did process the autopsy photos SS agent James Fox brought from the autopsy.
3. I will avoid Joe O'Donnell's claims as some view him as an unreliable witness. But they should be read and his testimony compared to that of Robert Knudsen, with whom he worked.
As Mr. Purvis has placed great value on knowing the facts of the case, I think the strange goings on that night at Bethesda should be considered whenever and wherever the "facts" of the case are trying to be ascertained. It's enough to drive one to drink. Best, Daniel
In event that one truly wishes to know the facts as to why the "trach" incision was so large, might I recommend that they take a visit to The Sixth Floor Museum, if/and when, they get around to posting the reason. (there is a two-page writeup which deals only with "THE ANTERIOR THROAT WOUND".
Meanwhile, they can, if they so desire, continue to stumble around in "rabbit holes" looking for mythological creatures (IE: multiple assassins; body snatchers; wound alteration specialists)
And for the record, be assured that I have little other than disdain for anyone who would readily accept such speculative theories without any obvious attempt to realize and recognize exactly how foolish they are.
-
Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel
March 25, 2010---(The George County Times)
At a personal cost of $1,200.00 ($600.00 per page), I published in The George County TImes, the "correct" answer(s) to your misguided concept that the anterior throat wound of JFK was a part of some giant conspiracy which involved body snatching and wound alteration.
Personal costs to date in publishing the "FACTUAL" information is approaching $30,000.00 (if not already achieved) and I have yet to complete presentation of the second shot/aka the Z313 impact. This is scheduled to be completed by the end of October.
Beginning November 2011, that information relative to the third/last/final shot impact will be published throughout the month of November.
For those who are already on the "distribution list" of the newspaper, your subscriptions will continue until completion of all publishings.
For those who are not, you just may have already missed out on some relatively interesting (and simple) facts.
In that regards, I will allow those who have received these facts to be the ultimate judge (on this forum).
Personally, were it me and I had a true interest in the factual aspects of the assassination of JFK, then I would most likely make some attempt to find out what is being published.
And, since publishing began in November 2009 with the explanation of CE399 and the wounds which it is responsible for, then a little "back" research just may answer many of the questions.
Tom Purvis
-
Nixon was also to be assassinated in 1970 and 1972. First was at Key Biscayne, the second was at the VVAW at Flamingo Park in Miami Beach Both events were financed by Pawley, both Nixon and Pawley are found in my father's phone book as well."I believe it is possible that William Pawley paid for the assassination of JFK."At risk of again incurring the "wrath" of the Pawley descendents, it is most unlikely that Wiiiiam Pawley played any knowledgeable role in the assassination of JFK.
A knowledgeable role, as well as potential financial assistance, in a plan which originally began with a plan to assassinate Fidel Castro???--------YEP!
That this operation most likely ended with the shooting of JFK, has sent many, many, "running for cover".
-
Tom,again your response to my assertion of tampering of the throat wound is a non-response. You are a very difficult guy to engage. I would like concrete arguments from you, but all I read are pontifications, as if you are in command of some secret knowledge like the Gnostics of old. Please answer one question for me, giving me FACTS: why would Perry, backed up by McClleland, I think, quote a 2-3 cm size for the trach incision, if in fact it was 7-8 cm at Bethesda? Thanks in advance, Daniel.
Actually!
What Dr. Perry informed Dr. Humes of was that the anterior throat wound was initially approximately 3mm to 5mm in size. (which was relatively correct)
================================================
Thereafter, he (Dr. Perry) made an approximately 2-3 cm standard tracheostomy incision. Which is also relatively correct.
The ultimate incision being closer to the approximate 7 to 8 cm size. Which is also correct.
In order to even come close to achieving the "correct answer", one must usually know as well as ask the "correct question".
For the most part, the subject of the anterior throat wound was long ago discussed here on this forum.
Having repeated myself numerous times, with little in the way of progress towards ending the BS, I have far better pursuits than to continue to attempt to explain the simple facts of the assassination to those who are most unlikely to accept and/or believe it anyway.
In event that there are those who, for failure to understand the factual evidence, wish to believe in "body snatchers" as well as "wound alteration specialists", then it is most unlikely that anything which I have to say is likely to point such believers towards the simple facts as to the anterior throat wouond.
Or, for that matter, virtually any other aspect of the pathological evidence which they have not taken time and effort to research for themselves.
"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule it merely means that one does not understand the evidence".
Tom Purvis
Big difference between not understanding the evidence as opposed to the necessity for inventing body snatchers/wound alteration specialists in order to merely attempt to explain what one does not understand.
-
Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel
"This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch"There exists, on this forum, a former conspiracy minded idividual, who could easily explain the aspects of the throat wound if they so desired.
That one decides something is "fact", when in fact it has no factual basis, hardly makes it even being close to the "factual truth".
There are those on this forum who were once "conspiracy oriented" who have now been exposed to the "factual truths", and who could now fully explain virtually all aspects of the anterior throat wound, were they of the mind to do so.
However, it remains for the individual to keep an "open mind" in order to recognize, evaluate, and accept whatever fact is derived from the why? of the anterior throat wound.
As with virtually every other aspect of the assassination, the CORRECT answers to the throat wound are a matter of simple research. And, there is absolutely no necessity to have to invent multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration experts; in order to sufficently cover the aspects of the anterior throat wound.
Same goes for all of the other wounds as well!
That's all fine and well, as long as you don't attempt to make Lee Harvey Oswald, the designated and confirmed Patsy as your lone sniper.
So far, he is the only one that fits the bill of:
A. The actual lone shooter!
B. The actual designated rabbit! (witting or unwitting)
Neither of which eliminates the potential for conspiracy in the actual event.
If, and when, the highly simple facts of the assassination are ever accepted, and the majority of those who have interest in the subject matter are no longer chasing mythological multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration specialists, then one just may be able to sufficiently concentrate on the LHO subject and determine exactly what role he actually played in this event.
-
Most Fortunately!
For those who are unaware, the Sixth Floor Museum at one time posted the "oral" interview with Mr. Summers.
Who also stated the approximate proximity of were the Presidential Limo was located at the time that he heard the last shot fired.
For those who are unaware, that interview is still available at the C-Span website, linked above. Four decades after, Mr. Summers' recollections about the source and timing of the shots
have little or no evidentiary value. For example, at about the 18:40 mark Gary Mack asks Summers to tap his knuckles on the table to indicate the timing of the shots. Summers does so
and indicates that there was no more than one second elapsed between the second and third shot.
Or as he told Larry Sneed, "As to the spacing of the shots, there was much more time between the first one and the second two, the second and the third. They were real close."
Now!
For those that are unaware, don't let anyone fool you into thinking Summers was a keen observer of the actual murder. He wasn't.
If you actually have any interest, don't take my word for it. Listen to his interview and see for yourself.
Or as Mr. Summers told Larry Sneed about the shots, "I'm not sure which one hit him where."
Tom
P.S. One can not establish exact elapsed time based on "earsay" testimony. Especially since the speed of sound is only accurate under given, established, and identical variables.
Huh? I guess that explains why Emmett Hudson told Liebler that probably two minutes passed from the time the first shot was fired until the second shot was fired.
However! One can establish approximate elapsed time by using the ears that God gave them.
An "essential variable" which one may wish to take into consideration!
The WC repeatedly "changed" wording within the testimony of many witnesses.
Be it to actually "change" certain meaning or to attempt to discredit the actual witness.
Since I was not present when Mr. Hudson was actually present, as with most items of the WC, I place little "full trust" in anything which the WC published, as being a given fact.
That would be especially true of anything in which Wesley Liebeler and/or Arlen Specter were involved.
Since "common sense" would dictate that there was not 2-minutes in the assassination shooting sequence, then it can be readily accepted that this is:
1. A complete misconception on the part of the witness
2. Some form of misunderstanding on the part of the stenographer taking the minutes of the testimony.
c. Another of those "changes" which were made to testimony without knowledge of the person giving the testimony.
Sufficient other witnesses, at least one of whom was quite reliable, ultimately testified as to the location of the third/last/final shot.
As to whether or not Mr. Hudson believes that there was a 2-minute elapsed time is irrelevant as to the overall conceptual and factual consensus of testimonies which clearly indicate:
A longer elapsed time span between shot#1 and Shot#2, than between Shot#2 and Shot#3.
Which is, and remains quite accurate when one takes into consideration the actual distance travelled by the Presidentual Limousine throughout the three-shot/three-impact sequence of the assassination.
-
Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel
"This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch"There exists, on this forum, a former conspiracy minded idividual, who could easily explain the aspects of the throat wound if they so desired.
That one decides something is "fact", when in fact it has no factual basis, hardly makes it even being close to the "factual truth".
There are those on this forum who were once "conspiracy oriented" who have now been exposed to the "factual truths", and who could now fully explain virtually all aspects of the anterior throat wound, were they of the mind to do so.
However, it remains for the individual to keep an "open mind" in order to recognize, evaluate, and accept whatever fact is derived from the why? of the anterior throat wound.
As with virtually every other aspect of the assassination, the CORRECT answers to the throat wound are a matter of simple research. And, there is absolutely no necessity to have to invent multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration experts; in order to sufficently cover the aspects of the anterior throat wound.
Same goes for all of the other wounds as well!
-
If the chain of possession of the body was lost (what I consider a fact) then all bets are off.... I wish more people would take seriously the problem of the chain of possession of the body. It's not "Lifton's" problem -- it's all of our problem, and it really screws up the case, that is, it makes the truth very very hard to find.
I think Lifton's research raised the question ( for me at least ) about whether or not the body was hijacked after the assassination. It would certainly make sense for a coverup to remove any bullets which remained in the body and would explain WHY the SS were so hellbent on not allowing the casket to be opened once they started their departure from Parkland. It makes me wonder if the body was even in that casket or if it had already been removed to be whisked out the rear door. I just find that the actions of the SS, to the extent of removing the casket at gunpoint, is somewhat strange.
If it had been ordered by RFK as AG, I'd have no problem with it. Perhaps the "Kennedy clan" was so pissed off that they were determined not to let any Dallasite cut him up. "We brought our guy down here and you blew his brains out, now you wanna carve him up ??? No way."
I could understand that.
But it still makes me wonder.
"But it still makes me wonder."
Wondering exactly why the human species responds in various ways (to stimuli) has generated many, many specialists in the fields of sociology, psychiatry, etc.
It however does not mean there exists some ulterior motive at the given time of the actions.
The evidence in the JFK assassination is in fact quite plain, clear, and simple, and left to stand on it's own merit will fully explain exactly how the assassination actually occurred.
One can attempt to "throw in" all of the body snatchers and/or multiple assassins they wish. This will not change the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, which ultimately determine the "FACTUAL TRUTH" of the assassination.
There are those who read this forum and who also were once of the opinion of the "great conspiracy" concept and the "great enigma" this is.
Thankfully, those who recognize the factual truths when they see them, are out there.
As few as they may be.
-
I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.
ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles
Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.
Truth v. Fact!
And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!
Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.
Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!
However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.
Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?
I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario, even after Oswald is eliminated as a possible suspect, not having descended the steps to the second floor and having been seen on the first floor at the time.
But I can't shake the witnesses who saw a large, blown out portion of the back of JFK's skull, clear indication of an exit wound.
How do you account for those witnesses?
BK
"How do you account for those witnesses?"
Bill;
Whether or not you accept the given answer is of course irrelevant to me.
Should you care for further elaboration as to how the second head shot (EOP entry/shot#3) cause an additional portion of the rear of JFK's skull to complete fragmentation and separate from the rear of his head, it can be easily explained (as well as shown) from the existing evidence.
Since Clint Hill also saw this section of/from the rear of the skull laying in the back seat of the Presidential Limo, there is little if any "speculation" as to it's existence.
Merely how it came to exist is what continues to cause and create confusion.
I don't have a problem with the confusion, as long as you don't try to pin it on Oswald, the Patsy.
BK
"I don't have a problem with the confusion, as long as you don't try to pin it on Oswald, the Patsy."
Bill;
Since I was not there, it remains up in the air as to who to attempt to "pin" it on.
And by that I reference strictly the lone/single shooter, not those who created this situation.
Those who were behind the actions of LHO were just as capable of placing him in the "designated patsy" position as they were of having him actually do the shooting.
That is one answer that will most likely forever remain lost.
If, and when, how the assassination actually occured is ever accepted, then perhaps the efforts of true researchers can be directed to the WHO?
Until then, most will continue to chase mythological multiple assassins, body snatchers, etc; etc; etc.
And, are most unlikely to come to any finalized consensus as to how the assassination even occurred.
So!
First off:--------How was "john" shot?
Then:-------------Who shot John?
And lastly:
Exactly who was behind the actions of "Who shot John"?
-
The topic of the Oral History project of the Sixth Floor is duscussed on the McAdams website.
Unfortunately (or not, whichever the case) the server appears to be down.
Therefore, Mr. Mack, might want to copy this since I appear to be the only known person to have ever sat down with Mr. Robert West and discussed the various assassination re-enactments.
Time/Life:
1. Breneman:
Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. (per Robert West during discussions held at his house)
And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats.
2. K(1) on the survey plat:---------------------First shot impact to JFK
P on the survey plat:-----------------------Where a bullet purportedly struck the pavement.*
K(2) on the survey plat:---------------------Z313 impact to JFK**
*According to Mr. West there was absolutely no indication (on the pavement) that any shot had struck at this point.
Time/Life merely informed them to survey in this point and mark it on the survey plat.
In additional discussions with Mr. West on the subject of any bullet "marks", Mr. West stated absolutely that no bullet marks could be found anywhere along the streets and/or curbs,(other than the Tague hit) and that a thorugh search was made.
In Fact, Mr. West personally gave me a copy of a newspaper article which showed the photo of a bullet fragment purportedly being picked up down by the manhole cover.
Therefore, from a witness who was involved in the "search", the only indication of any potential bullet impact was the curb section for the "Tague" hit which was later cut and removed by the FBI.
3. As one looks at the Time/life survey plat, they will find that the alignment from Zapruder--to bullet impact---to yellow stripe in the background, does not correspond with what was later established by the SS, FBI, and WC.
This is a result of the errors of survey of Breneman, coupled with the "carryover" of these errors in attempting to draw a survey plat with inaccurate information.
4. Nevertheless, the Time/Life survey plat, as well as the two pages of known survey notes, provide critical information relative to exactly how to find given points in Dealey Plaza, should one desire to go back and find the nails which the survey crew drove into Elm St. as well as the open grassy area behind where Mary Moorman & Jean Hill were standing.
(more to come, & will attempt to answer any questions. Stick with the Time/Life survey work for now)
Tom
Onward then!
The Time/Life survey work utilized neither survey stationing along Elm St, frame#'s of the Zapruder film, or an accurate elevation control which was gained from any SCP (Survey Control Point/station) located near Dealey Plaza.
Nevertheless, when the information available from this survey is married with the later *SS/FBI/WC/& HSCA survey plats, much valuable information begins to form in regards to the actual impact location for each of the three shots fired.
*Inclulding the actual survey notes from Time/Life--SS--FBI--& WC.
When correlates the various information, they will find that the Time/Life impact location for what would have been the first shot fired in the assassination is at what would be approximately Z204/206.
This location also correlates exactly with the "jiggle analysis" and appears to be why the WC deemed it necessary to omit publication of those frames of the Z-film in the 208/211 region, as well as why the WC saw a need to alter the survey data for frames# 208/210.
Fortunately, the survey notes from the Time/Life assassination re-enactment provide sufficient measurements to establish where certain fixed/semi-fixed items of reference were located, and these items also provide reference points when one has that information from the other survey works.
No questions? Comments? Criticisms?????
If not, then on to the SS assassination re-enactment of December 1964 and some of the discussions with Mr. West about this document.
"If not, then on to the SS assassination re-enactment of December 1964 and some of the discussions with Mr. West about this document."
Forget that!
Let's skip to the FBI survey plat of June 1964, since the Sixth Floor Museum is (assumedly) in possession of that one as well.
1. Long after the WC (about a month), Mr. West was contacted by the local office of the FBI and told that they wanted him to modify their previous survey plat of 2/7/64.
2. No reason was given for this "modification" and Mr. West did not ask. He merely did as requested.
3. No survey work was involved in this modification and Mr. West merely utilized that information previously gathered (primarily from the SS survey works of December 1963).
4. Since the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 was created utilizing that information gathered during the SS assassination re-enactment of 12/5/63, the SS as well as FBI survey plats appear almost identical.
5. Anyway, the FBI survey plat of June 1964, deletes the impact location for shot#3 which was down Elm St. directly in front of James Altgens location.
6. This "#3" impact location appears on the SS survey plat of 12/5/63 from their assassination re-enactment, as well as also appearing on the FBI survey plat of 2/7/64 from the FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat.
7. The #3 location is identical (stationing 4+95) for the two separate survey plats.
8. This #3 impact location was deleted (at the request of the FBI) from the June 1964 survey plat, which now shows only the #1 and #2/Z313 impact locations.
9. Mr. West had no knowledge as to exactly why the FBI asked for this new/modified/changed survey plat, and he did not ask.
10. As noted elswhere, the shot#2/aka Z313 impact is located at survey stationing 4+66.7 on the SS and FBI survey plats, whereas the WC places this shot at 4+65.3. (a difference of 1.4 feet), with a corresponding slight difference in street elevation.
The FBI survey plat of June 1964 serves to fully point out that the FBI had long known the location of the third shot impact, and it was made to "disappear" into the maze of other confusing items which have continously been fostered since.
-
Chris; here's a short one, mentioning summers...fwiw...b
http://educationforu...?showtopic=9357
there is another thread titled..Altgens Malcolm Summers..Purvis..
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 but i cannot link to it...perhaps you can find in search i could not...b
My thanks for finding it. Knew that it was in there somewhere.
Tom
"And then the third was just about where I was at, rang out"…
Malcolm Summers
P.S. Since Mr. Summers was located almost directly behind James Altgens who testified that the last shot fired struck JFK directly in front of him, and others also testified as to the general location of the Presidential Limousine at the time of the third shot,
it sort of indicates that the WC was not too truthful in their "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" and Z313 as the last shot impact.
Especially since the US Secret Service as well as the FBI both placed the third shot impact as having been directly out into Elm St. in front of James Altgens location.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Could it be that the WC lied to us all?????????
-
I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.
ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles
Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.
Truth v. Fact!
And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!
Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.
Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!
However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.
Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?
I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario, even after Oswald is eliminated as a possible suspect, not having descended the steps to the second floor and having been seen on the first floor at the time.
But I can't shake the witnesses who saw a large, blown out portion of the back of JFK's skull, clear indication of an exit wound.
How do you account for those witnesses?
BK
"How do you account for those witnesses?"
Bill;
Whether or not you accept the given answer is of course irrelevant to me.
Should you care for further elaboration as to how the second head shot (EOP entry/shot#3) cause an additional portion of the rear of JFK's skull to complete fragmentation and separate from the rear of his head, it can be easily explained (as well as shown) from the existing evidence.
Since Clint Hill also saw this section of/from the rear of the skull laying in the back seat of the Presidential Limo, there is little if any "speculation" as to it's existence.
Merely how it came to exist is what continues to cause and create confusion.
-
I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario,
I don't see how given the location of the back wound.
At least 2 shooters fired at JFK. That is a readily proven FACT.
Thats a proven fact? LMAO.
It's a proven fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back JKF's jacket as seen in Betzner.
"At least 2 shooters fired at JFK. That is a readily proven FACT."
Why don't we just go for broke and make it 5-shooters, and then add in the "body snatcher" theory as well.
Or better yet, JFK still lives on some remote Island.-----Saw that in one of the Wal-Mart tabloids. (for the record, did not believe it either)
-
I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.
ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles
Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.
Truth v. Fact!
And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!
Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.
Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!
However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.
Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?
Tom, what is in dispute are the facts of the case. If the chain of possession of the body was lost (what I consider a fact) then all bets are off. Your conclusions (and mine) are not worth the paper they're printed on. I find it very hard to take your assertions of "fact" with any degree of factuality ( I think I made up that last word). I wish more people would take seriously the problem of the chain of possession of the body. It's not "Lifton's" problem -- it's all of our problem, and it really screws up the case, that is, it makes the truth very very hard to find. Please reconsider your absolute confidence in your conclusions, or patiently explain to me why I need not consider this fly in the ointment. Best, Daniel
Of one "FACT" I am most assuredly certain.
It is a complete waste of time and effort to attempt to explain forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact to anyone who is even remotely of the opinion that they would consider the "body snatching" scenario.
All of the facts are in fact quite simple as well as relatively easy to understand.
But!
Not for those who are gainfully employed in chasing mythological multiple assassins and/or body snatchers.
-
The topic of the Oral History project of the Sixth Floor is duscussed on the McAdams website.
Unfortunately (or not, whichever the case) the server appears to be down.
Therefore, Mr. Mack, might want to copy this since I appear to be the only known person to have ever sat down with Mr. Robert West and discussed the various assassination re-enactments.
Time/Life:
1. Breneman:
Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. (per Robert West during discussions held at his house)
And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats.
2. K(1) on the survey plat:---------------------First shot impact to JFK
P on the survey plat:-----------------------Where a bullet purportedly struck the pavement.*
K(2) on the survey plat:---------------------Z313 impact to JFK**
*According to Mr. West there was absolutely no indication (on the pavement) that any shot had struck at this point.
Time/Life merely informed them to survey in this point and mark it on the survey plat.
In additional discussions with Mr. West on the subject of any bullet "marks", Mr. West stated absolutely that no bullet marks could be found anywhere along the streets and/or curbs,(other than the Tague hit) and that a thorugh search was made.
In Fact, Mr. West personally gave me a copy of a newspaper article which showed the photo of a bullet fragment purportedly being picked up down by the manhole cover.
Therefore, from a witness who was involved in the "search", the only indication of any potential bullet impact was the curb section for the "Tague" hit which was later cut and removed by the FBI.
3. As one looks at the Time/life survey plat, they will find that the alignment from Zapruder--to bullet impact---to yellow stripe in the background, does not correspond with what was later established by the SS, FBI, and WC.
This is a result of the errors of survey of Breneman, coupled with the "carryover" of these errors in attempting to draw a survey plat with inaccurate information.
4. Nevertheless, the Time/Life survey plat, as well as the two pages of known survey notes, provide critical information relative to exactly how to find given points in Dealey Plaza, should one desire to go back and find the nails which the survey crew drove into Elm St. as well as the open grassy area behind where Mary Moorman & Jean Hill were standing.
(more to come, & will attempt to answer any questions. Stick with the Time/Life survey work for now)
Tom
Onward then!
The Time/Life survey work utilized neither survey stationing along Elm St, frame#'s of the Zapruder film, or an accurate elevation control which was gained from any SCP (Survey Control Point/station) located near Dealey Plaza.
Nevertheless, when the information available from this survey is married with the later *SS/FBI/WC/& HSCA survey plats, much valuable information begins to form in regards to the actual impact location for each of the three shots fired.
*Inclulding the actual survey notes from Time/Life--SS--FBI--& WC.
When correlates the various information, they will find that the Time/Life impact location for what would have been the first shot fired in the assassination is at what would be approximately Z204/206.
This location also correlates exactly with the "jiggle analysis" and appears to be why the WC deemed it necessary to omit publication of those frames of the Z-film in the 208/211 region, as well as why the WC saw a need to alter the survey data for frames# 208/210.
Fortunately, the survey notes from the Time/Life assassination re-enactment provide sufficient measurements to establish where certain fixed/semi-fixed items of reference were located, and these items also provide reference points when one has that information from the other survey works.
No questions? Comments? Criticisms?????
If not, then on to the SS assassination re-enactment of December 1964 and some of the discussions with Mr. West about this document.
P.S. For Mr. Mack & others:
The downward angle of fire drawing marked "LIFE" was not prepared by Breneman.
Mr. West went back into Dealey Plaza later and gained the information necessary to prepare this drawing.
From indications of my discussions with him, it may in fact have been prepared by Mr. West, although I never specifically asked if he made it.
Breneman had made no such drawing and none of his work took into consideration the height of JFK's head above the pavement.
Mr. West indicated that there had to be/quite obviously was additional information provided by Brenneman in order to have completed the Time/Life Survey Plat.
However, he could not locate them and did not even know if they were in his possession.
For the "Treasure Seeker", there should be a field survey log in existence somewhere, in which Breneman would/should have recorded much of the assassination re-enactment information.
-
I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.
ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles
Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.
Truth v. Fact!
And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!
Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.
Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!
However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.
Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?
I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario, even after Oswald is eliminated as a possible suspect, not having descended the steps to the second floor and having been seen on the first floor at the time.
But I can't shake the witnesses who saw a large, blown out portion of the back of JFK's skull, clear indication of an exit wound.
How do you account for those witnesses?
BK
"How do you account for those witnesses?"
As with most things--------They too were correct!
Merely that "blown out" could come from a bullet exiting out the back of the head, or for that matter from the shattering of an already severely compromised skull bone, by a subsequent (ie: the third shot impact) bullet impact.
One of which is "truth" and the other of which is a "fact"!
As a "hint", there was no bullet exit (indication of any exterior table of the skull beveling) found on any section of skull from the rearmost portion of the head.
[b]"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence"[/b]
Tom Purvis
-
The topic of the Oral History project of the Sixth Floor is duscussed on the McAdams website.
Unfortunately (or not, whichever the case) the server appears to be down.
Therefore, Mr. Mack, might want to copy this since I appear to be the only known person to have ever sat down with Mr. Robert West and discussed the various assassination re-enactments.
Time/Life:
1. Breneman:
Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. (per Robert West during discussions held at his house)
And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats.
2. K(1) on the survey plat:---------------------First shot impact to JFK
P on the survey plat:-----------------------Where a bullet purportedly struck the pavement.*
K(2) on the survey plat:---------------------Z313 impact to JFK**
*According to Mr. West there was absolutely no indication (on the pavement) that any shot had struck at this point.
Time/Life merely informed them to survey in this point and mark it on the survey plat.
In additional discussions with Mr. West on the subject of any bullet "marks", Mr. West stated absolutely that no bullet marks could be found anywhere along the streets and/or curbs,(other than the Tague hit) and that a thorugh search was made.
In Fact, Mr. West personally gave me a copy of a newspaper article which showed the photo of a bullet fragment purportedly being picked up down by the manhole cover.
Therefore, from a witness who was involved in the "search", the only indication of any potential bullet impact was the curb section for the "Tague" hit which was later cut and removed by the FBI.
3. As one looks at the Time/life survey plat, they will find that the alignment from Zapruder--to bullet impact---to yellow stripe in the background, does not correspond with what was later established by the SS, FBI, and WC.
This is a result of the errors of survey of Breneman, coupled with the "carryover" of these errors in attempting to draw a survey plat with inaccurate information.
4. Nevertheless, the Time/Life survey plat, as well as the two pages of known survey notes, provide critical information relative to exactly how to find given points in Dealey Plaza, should one desire to go back and find the nails which the survey crew drove into Elm St. as well as the open grassy area behind where Mary Moorman & Jean Hill were standing.
(more to come, & will attempt to answer any questions. Stick with the Time/Life survey work for now)
Tom
Onward then!
The Time/Life survey work utilized neither survey stationing along Elm St, frame#'s of the Zapruder film, or an accurate elevation control which was gained from any SCP (Survey Control Point/station) located near Dealey Plaza.
Nevertheless, when the information available from this survey is married with the later *SS/FBI/WC/& HSCA survey plats, much valuable information begins to form in regards to the actual impact location for each of the three shots fired.
*Inclulding the actual survey notes from Time/Life--SS--FBI--& WC.
When correlates the various information, they will find that the Time/Life impact location for what would have been the first shot fired in the assassination is at what would be approximately Z204/206.
This location also correlates exactly with the "jiggle analysis" and appears to be why the WC deemed it necessary to omit publication of those frames of the Z-film in the 208/211 region, as well as why the WC saw a need to alter the survey data for frames# 208/210.
Fortunately, the survey notes from the Time/Life assassination re-enactment provide sufficient measurements to establish where certain fixed/semi-fixed items of reference were located, and these items also provide reference points when one has that information from the other survey works.
No questions? Comments? Criticisms?????
If not, then on to the SS assassination re-enactment of December 1964 and some of the discussions with Mr. West about this document.
-
I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.
ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles
Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.
Truth v. Fact!
And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!
Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.
Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!
However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.
Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?
-
Most Fortunately!
For those who are unaware, the Sixth Floor Museum at one time posted the "oral" interview with Mr. Summers.
Who also stated the approximate proximity of were the Presidential Limo was located at the time that he heard the last shot fired.
For those who are unaware, that interview is still available at the C-Span website, linked above. Four decades after, Mr. Summers' recollections about the source and timing of the shots
have little or no evidentiary value. For example, at about the 18:40 mark Gary Mack asks Summers to tap his knuckles on the table to indicate the timing of the shots. Summers does so
and indicates that there was no more than one second elapsed between the second and third shot.
Or as he told Larry Sneed, "As to the spacing of the shots, there was much more time between the first one and the second two, the second and the third. They were real close."
Now!
For those that are unaware, don't let anyone fool you into thinking Summers was a keen observer of the actual murder. He wasn't.
If you actually have any interest, don't take my word for it. Listen to his interview and see for yourself.
Or as Mr. Summers told Larry Sneed about the shots, "I'm not sure which one hit him where."
By the way, in that interview Gary Mack asks the most neutral and insipid questions imaginable.
Tom
P.S. One can not establish exact elapsed time based on "earsay" testimony. Especially since the speed of sound is only accurate under given, established, and identical variables.
-
The topic of the Oral History project of the Sixth Floor is duscussed on the McAdams website.
Unfortunately (or not, whichever the case) the server appears to be down.
Therefore, Mr. Mack, might want to copy this since I appear to be the only known person to have ever sat down with Mr. Robert West and discussed the various assassination re-enactments.
Time/Life:
1. Breneman:
Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. (per Robert West during discussions held at his house)
And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats.
2. K(1) on the survey plat:---------------------First shot impact to JFK
P on the survey plat:-----------------------Where a bullet purportedly struck the pavement.*
K(2) on the survey plat:---------------------Z313 impact to JFK**
*According to Mr. West there was absolutely no indication (on the pavement) that any shot had struck at this point.
Time/Life merely informed them to survey in this point and mark it on the survey plat.
In additional discussions with Mr. West on the subject of any bullet "marks", Mr. West stated absolutely that no bullet marks could be found anywhere along the streets and/or curbs,(other than the Tague hit) and that a thorugh search was made.
In Fact, Mr. West personally gave me a copy of a newspaper article which showed the photo of a bullet fragment purportedly being picked up down by the manhole cover.
Therefore, from a witness who was involved in the "search", the only indication of any potential bullet impact was the curb section for the "Tague" hit which was later cut and removed by the FBI.
3. As one looks at the Time/life survey plat, they will find that the alignment from Zapruder--to bullet impact---to yellow stripe in the background, does not correspond with what was later established by the SS, FBI, and WC.
This is a result of the errors of survey of Breneman, coupled with the "carryover" of these errors in attempting to draw a survey plat with inaccurate information.
4. Nevertheless, the Time/Life survey plat, as well as the two pages of known survey notes, provide critical information relative to exactly how to find given points in Dealey Plaza, should one desire to go back and find the nails which the survey crew drove into Elm St. as well as the open grassy area behind where Mary Moorman & Jean Hill were standing.
(more to come, & will attempt to answer any questions. Stick with the Time/Life survey work for now)
Tom
-
http://politicalassassinations.wordpress.c...w-reading-room/
ASSASSINATION PAPERS MAY BE HEADED FOR THE 6TH FLOOR MUSEUM READING ROOM.....
I know for a fact that "assassination records" have been sent to the 6th floor museum.
Since I sent them.
Tom
-
TRUTH: "a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one."
(belief): "the state of believing"
"mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty
may be absent."
FACT: "the state of things as they are; reality; actuality"
(reality): "a person or thing that is real"
(actuality): "the state of being actual"
(actual): "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real"
Your definition of "truth" indicates that "truth" is subjective, aligned closely with "belief." That's a particular philosophical position, one with which I am scarely comfortable. Would that we could know the facts of this case, so that we might know the truth of the matter. In this understanding, "truth" is the logical conclusion dictated by the facts of the case. But oh, how the facts are in dispute, and thus, truth is hid from our eyes. Best, Daniel
Your definition of "truth"
Fine, except! Not my defination. Try the Random House Dictionary
Examples:
The Earth is flat! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact!
The Earth is the center of the Universe! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact.
"Truth" is what is believed, and tends to change as one (hopefully) gains more knowledge into the realm of physical fact.
Random House Dictionary??!!?? For something as philosophically dense as the concept of truth? Sorry, no can do. But in the end, I see where you are coming from, and I see that basically, we agree.
Well, I was wrong! It was Webster's (big/thick) dictionary.
Anyway, Truth may actually be fact. If so, then it becomes a "factual truth".
Facts cannot change, merely our often erroneous interpretation of these facts, which we too often, in error, accept as truth.
As JBC was known to pronounce: "The truth is what we tell them it is!" (or words to that effect)
But of course, JBC was a known xxxx!
deleted double...oops
The Difference
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
"Gary Mack and I have the same evidence in front of us."
Nope!------Wrong again!
Since you are not on the "distribution list", and there is no record that you subscribe to The George County Times,then I would again have to disagree with you.
Mr. Mack is in possession of a two (full) page newspaper writeup in regards to the anterior throat wound, which I might add fully explains the answers related to the questions of the tracheotomy as well as most other questions related to this enigma.
Answers of which I might add, do not require one to invent mythological "body snatchers & wound alteration specialists" in order to explain something which one has failed to adequately research.
Tom Purvis
"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence."
As a general rule it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."