Bugliosi Has Won !

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Perhaps a little reminder from two persons (myself & one other) whom some appear to have little respect for, is in order.

http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-nixon?cat=entertainment

"Defeat doesn't finish a man -- quit does. A man is not finished when he's defeated. He's finished when he quits."

[Charles Black]

Very well said Tom Purvis

Death is not related to defeat and is neither dishonorable. In the opinion of many that I have known, both death and honorable defeat were far more desireable than life without honor.

One can in advance realize the probability of both defeat and death, and yet not compromise the belief or truth of their cause.

Some may not understand this, but there are many that feel that death or defeat is much more preferable, than life extension which was purchased thru the sale of one's principles.

Death or defeat after doing one's utmost best, does not suggest that one is a "loser" !

I feel that winning / losing......success /failure

cannot be defined by Webster. The only determination of these factors are those which we must each inwardly determine. When we are satisfied inwardly with our personal efforts....we have satisfied both ourselves and our God !

What else matters ? Nothing to me personally !

I have never sought "mass approval".....since having reached adulthood ! I have found self approval both quite rewarding and fulfilling. The faith of my beliefs has allowed me the personal honor of backing away from nothing.

This isn't "bravery"....it is character.... which I could not change for any promised reward. It is something that is "just there" ! It may be my most prized "gift" !

Charles Black

[Charles Black]

sorry...a deleted "double"

Edited June 20, 2007 by Charles Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

This forum has been provided with all of the tools and weapons necessary to "defeat" Bugliosi as well as to ultimately re-open the examination into the assassination of JFK.

However, rather than utilize these tools, it continues to ramble on what are or may be completely irrelevant issues and items which absolutely can never be proven (or disproven) and which would have little bearing on the subject matter of the shots fired, even if determined.

If, and when, those who are now headed into the correct direction, will verify the facts as to exactly when the third shot was fired, this is the beginning.

It is not expected that the "CT" community is going to accept what I say. However, when members of their own community begin to demonstrate the factual truths to them, most will begin to recognize and accept that which has been presented. So goes the nature of the human species!

So, if virtually all here become aware of exactly where the last shot was fired and thereafter promote this LOUDLY from every street corner, it will not get ignored.

In addition, I long ago provided what most CTer's have only dreamed of. That being the first irrefutable proof of altered evidence in the WC Investigation, as well as the sneaky little (slight) sleight-of-hand manner in which this evidence was "slipped" by and introduced.

The CT Community will get little attention (other than the frequenet laughs and jeers) if they are of the opinion that the Bugliosi book will be defeated by yelling "BODY SNATCHERS": MULTIPLE ASSASSINS"; etc; etc; etc;

With the now available evidence, the WC has become a victim of their own lie, and they must now either fully admit that there was in fact a multlilple assassin; or else they were fully aware of the impact point of the third shot and that some alteration of the Z-film has been done in order to "mask" this shot.

They can not have it both ways, as the evidence is now fully indicative that the last shot, as demonstrated by the presented film, could not have been fired from the Carcano rifle.

The evidence is now also fully demonstrated to show that the WC has always known exactly where the third shot was fired, as they too were in possession of the SS survey work/Survey Plat of Mr. Robert West, which clearly shows the impact in front of James Altgens at station 4+95.

Unlike Vietnam, I will not fight your war for you.

You have been provided with the weapons, tools, ammunition, as well as the guidance in which the "Directed Effort" must be approached and applied if you wish to demonstrate the actual and factual conspiracies which surround the coverup of the assassination of JFK.

Once you "have their attention" then one establishes some credibility and thereafter could/would most likely have little difficulty in actually demonstrating the "conspiracy" which surrounds LHO.

In order to win this battle, far too many have concentrated their efforts on the SBT.

And although one can rest assured that this to is completely resolved, even this is not sufficient to fully gain the attention of those who will become followers and promoters of exposing the WC lie.

Demonstrate the third shot location!-----One does not even have to demonstrate that it actual hit anything.

Demonstrate the altered evidence!-------One does not even have to know exactly what purpose it served.

And, with these alone, Bugliosi is discredited, which is one of the first stages of being defeated.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

To believe for one moment that the illegitimate poisonous pushers of such storied cancerous lies have won, is nothing less than a retreat to the land of "headinthesand" Bugliosi and his paymasters have won nothing, whilst one Person continues to fight for the truth. all they have done, and that for a fleeting moment, is to sell yet another set of "horsefeathers" to the status obsessed masses, as Yeats observed "The center cannot hold" and this will not stand. Read Osymandius......

********************************************************

"...as Yeats observed "The center cannot hold" and this will not stand. Read Osymandius......"

Excellent advice, Stephen.

Hey Ter, Kinda knew you'd like Osymandius..As Mr Marx was wont verbalise, "All that is solid melts into air" A lesson Bugliosi is about learn. The dustbin of History is littered with final solutions.

[Cliff Varnell]

This forum has been provided with all of the tools and weapons necessary to "defeat" Bugliosi as well as to ultimately re-open the examination into the assassination of JFK.

The world was provided these tools back in 1966.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html

A photo of JFK's shirt -- and it's too-low-for-the-SBT bullet hole -- was published for

the first time in Fonzi's article.

Rather than focus on this very simple demolition of the Single Bullet Theory,

generations of JFK researchers have pursued the "question of conspiracy"

as if it were a personal holy grail instead of a bogus "mystery" readily solved

by the extant physical evidence.

However, rather than utilize these tools, it continues to ramble on what are or may be completely irrelevant issues and items which absolutely can never be proven (or disproven) and which would have little bearing on the subject matter of the shots fired, even if determined.

I find myself agreeing with Tom Purvis here.

While early researchers like Fonzi and Salandria cite the bullet holes

in the clothes as the "smoking gun," the JFK research community has

meandered into far less productive areas of research like the location of

the head wounds, analyses of the police dictabelt, and efforts to debunk

the Neutron Activation Analysis of the magic bullet.

These evidentiary black holes are barely worthy of historical footnotes!

If, and when, those who are now headed into the correct direction, will verify the facts as to exactly when the third shot was fired, this is the beginning.

It is not expected that the "CT" community is going to accept what I say. However, when members of their own community begin to demonstrate the factual truths to them, most will begin to recognize and accept that which has been presented. So goes the nature of the human species!

So, if virtually all here become aware of exactly where the last shot was fired and thereafter promote this LOUDLY from every street corner, it will not get ignored.

In addition, I long ago provided what most CTer's have only dreamed of. That being the first irrefutable proof of altered evidence in the WC Investigation, as well as the sneaky little (slight) sleight-of-hand manner in which this evidence was "slipped" by and introduced.

The CT Community will get little attention (other than the frequenet laughs and jeers) if they are of the opinion that the Bugliosi book will be defeated by yelling "BODY SNATCHERS": MULTIPLE ASSASSINS"; etc; etc; etc;

Thanks but no thanks for your advice, Tom

At least 4 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63.

This is an easily established historical fact.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

JFK at Z186:

Red box: 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

Yellow box: According to Tom Purvis this horizontal fold MUST involve

3 inches of jacket fabric and 3 inches of shirt fabric elevated in tandem.

And yet the Betzner fold obviously involves something closer 3 millimeters (1/8")

of elevated fabric.

Tom Purvis' theory is intellectually indefensible.

As far as Da Bug goes -- 1600 pages and not once does Bugliosi acknowledge

the crucial discrepancy between the holes in the clothes and the "Single Bullet Fact,"

as he likes to call it.

Just like so many of our "CT" Parlor Game players -- Bugliosi acts as if the

clothing evidence of the T3 back wound simply doesn't exist.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

This forum has been provided with all of the tools and weapons necessary to "defeat" Bugliosi as well as to ultimately re-open the examination into the assassination of JFK.

The world was provided these tools back in 1966.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html

A photo of JFK's shirt -- and it's too-low-for-the-SBT bullet hole -- was published for

the first time in Fonzi's article.

Rather than focus on this very simple demolition of the Single Bullet Theory,

generations of JFK researchers have pursued the "question of conspiracy"

as if it were a personal holy grail instead of a bogus "mystery" readily solved

by the extant physical evidence.

However, rather than utilize these tools, it continues to ramble on what are or may be completely irrelevant issues and items which absolutely can never be proven (or disproven) and which would have little bearing on the subject matter of the shots fired, even if determined.

I find myself agreeing with Tom Purvis here.

While early researchers like Fonzi and Salandria cite the bullet holes

in the clothes as the "smoking gun," the JFK research community has

meandered into far less productive areas of research like the location of

the head wounds, analyses of the police dictabelt, and efforts to debunk

the Neutron Activation Analysis of the magic bullet.

These evidentiary black holes are barely worthy of historical footnotes!

If, and when, those who are now headed into the correct direction, will verify the facts as to exactly when the third shot was fired, this is the beginning.

It is not expected that the "CT" community is going to accept what I say. However, when members of their own community begin to demonstrate the factual truths to them, most will begin to recognize and accept that which has been presented. So goes the nature of the human species!

So, if virtually all here become aware of exactly where the last shot was fired and thereafter promote this LOUDLY from every street corner, it will not get ignored.

In addition, I long ago provided what most CTer's have only dreamed of. That being the first irrefutable proof of altered evidence in the WC Investigation, as well as the sneaky little (slight) sleight-of-hand manner in which this evidence was "slipped" by and introduced.

The CT Community will get little attention (other than the frequenet laughs and jeers) if they are of the opinion that the Bugliosi book will be defeated by yelling "BODY SNATCHERS": MULTIPLE ASSASSINS"; etc; etc; etc;

Thanks but no thanks for your advice, Tom

At least 4 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63.

This is an easily established historical fact.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

JFK at Z186:

Red box: 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

Yellow box: According to Tom Purvis this horizontal fold MUST involve

3 inches of jacket fabric and 3 inches of shirt fabric elevated in tandem.

And yet the Betzner fold obviously involves something closer 3 millimeters (1/8")

of elevated fabric.

Tom Purvis' theory is intellectually indefensible.

As far as Da Bug goes -- 1600 pages and not once does Bugliosi acknowledge

the crucial discrepancy between the holes in the clothes and the "Single Bullet Fact,"

as he likes to call it.

Just like so many of our "CT" Parlor Game players -- Bugliosi acts as if the

clothing evidence of the T3 back wound simply doesn't exist.

Tom Purvis' theory is intellectually indefensible.

Cliff;

Failure to comprehend the facts does not mean that others are "intellectually" inferior.

It merely means that somewhere along the line, someone is lacking that ability necessary to understand and correlate the facts.

And, I more than anyone, am fully willing to let History be the ultimate judge of who is and/or who is not, as well who does and who does not !

Or, just perhaps you would like to explain, for the enjoyment of the reading audience, exactly how it is that that old nasty "bunch/fold" in the back of JFK's coat managed to jump back into place after the first shot had been fired, despite the fact that JFK's actions of leaning forward should have, by all known standards, decreased the fold/bunch.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z265.jpg

[Cliff Varnell]

This forum has been provided with all of the tools and weapons necessary to "defeat" Bugliosi as well as to ultimately re-open the examination into the assassination of JFK.

The world was provided these tools back in 1966.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html

A photo of JFK's shirt -- and it's too-low-for-the-SBT bullet hole -- was published for

the first time in Fonzi's article.

Rather than focus on this very simple demolition of the Single Bullet Theory,

generations of JFK researchers have pursued the "question of conspiracy"

as if it were a personal holy grail instead of a bogus "mystery" readily solved

by the extant physical evidence.

However, rather than utilize these tools, it continues to ramble on what are or may be completely irrelevant issues and items which absolutely can never be proven (or disproven) and which would have little bearing on the subject matter of the shots fired, even if determined.

I find myself agreeing with Tom Purvis here.

While early researchers like Fonzi and Salandria cite the bullet holes

in the clothes as the "smoking gun," the JFK research community has

meandered into far less productive areas of research like the location of

the head wounds, analyses of the police dictabelt, and efforts to debunk

the Neutron Activation Analysis of the magic bullet.

These evidentiary black holes are barely worthy of historical footnotes!

If, and when, those who are now headed into the correct direction, will verify the facts as to exactly when the third shot was fired, this is the beginning.

It is not expected that the "CT" community is going to accept what I say. However, when members of their own community begin to demonstrate the factual truths to them, most will begin to recognize and accept that which has been presented. So goes the nature of the human species!

So, if virtually all here become aware of exactly where the last shot was fired and thereafter promote this LOUDLY from every street corner, it will not get ignored.

In addition, I long ago provided what most CTer's have only dreamed of. That being the first irrefutable proof of altered evidence in the WC Investigation, as well as the sneaky little (slight) sleight-of-hand manner in which this evidence was "slipped" by and introduced.

The CT Community will get little attention (other than the frequenet laughs and jeers) if they are of the opinion that the Bugliosi book will be defeated by yelling "BODY SNATCHERS": MULTIPLE ASSASSINS"; etc; etc; etc;

Thanks but no thanks for your advice, Tom

At least 4 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63.

This is an easily established historical fact.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

JFK at Z186:

Red box: 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

Yellow box: According to Tom Purvis this horizontal fold MUST involve

3 inches of jacket fabric and 3 inches of shirt fabric elevated in tandem.

And yet the Betzner fold obviously involves something closer 3 millimeters (1/8")

of elevated fabric.

Tom Purvis' theory is intellectually indefensible.

As far as Da Bug goes -- 1600 pages and not once does Bugliosi acknowledge

the crucial discrepancy between the holes in the clothes and the "Single Bullet Fact,"

as he likes to call it.

Just like so many of our "CT" Parlor Game players -- Bugliosi acts as if the

clothing evidence of the T3 back wound simply doesn't exist.

Tom Purvis' theory is intellectually indefensible.

Cliff;

Failure to comprehend the facts does not mean that others are "intellectually" inferior.

I said your argument was "intellectually indefensible" -- you filled in the

part about certain people being "intellectually inferior," not I.

It merely means that somewhere along the line, someone is lacking that ability necessary to understand and correlate the facts.

Be that as it may...

And, I more than anyone, am fully willing to let History be the ultimate judge of who is and/or who is not, as well who does and who does not !

Or, just perhaps you would like to explain, for the enjoyment of the reading audience, exactly how it is that that old nasty "bunch/fold" in the back of JFK's coat managed to jump back into place after the first shot had been fired, despite the fact that JFK's actions of leaning forward should have, by all known standards, decreased the fold/bunch.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z265.jpg

This z-frame shows a vertical/diagonal fold in the right front of JFK's jacket.

As any pre-school tyke of average intelligence can demonstrate, VERTICAL

folds in fabric are caused by the fabric being bunched SIDEWAYS.

How is a SIDEWAYS movement of JFK's jacket consistent with Tom Purvis'

insistence the shirt and jacket were pushed UP 3" each?

Forrest Gump could figure out that SIDEWAYS and UP are not the same

direction.

How 'bout you, Tom?

Are you content to point to any fold in anyone's clothes and claim that the

fold involves 3" of fabric -- to the exclusion of any smaller amount of fabric?

In the fantasy world of LNers and Vichy CTs, clothing moves exclusively

UP (never down or sideways) and always in increments of multiple inches...

...Maybe there's a 4 year old around who could straighten you out on this, Tom.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

The Rorschach test of the bunched/non-bunched jacket will never be definitive because the photos simply aren't clear enough. One can insult others all day (or for years, as the case may be) but it seems dicey to hang ones' credibility on the interpretation of woefully fuzzy photos.

A person can loudly claim that "it's plain to see!" endlessly - and some do - but it ain't necessarily so.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Mark Valenti

[Cliff Varnell]

The Rorschach test of the bunched/non-bunched jacket will never be definitive because the photos simply aren't clear enough. One can insult others all day (or for years, as the case may be) but it seems dicey to hang ones' credibility on the interpretation of woefully fuzzy photos.

A person can loudly claim that "it's plain to see!" endlessly - and some do - but it ain't necessarily so.

And sometimes things ARE plain to see.

But some endlessly deny the obvious.

You can't see a horizontal fold in the yellow box in this close-up of JFK?

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

[William O'Neil]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

William,

You're right, and it's dumb of me to get into a tug of war over a non-issue like this.

But even the medical evidence is a mine field.

You look at a photo and say "That's where the bullet entered the back."

Then someone else says "The photo has been altered."

A doctor testifies about what he saw.

Another doctor, presumably one who was standing inches away from the first doctor, describes the wound in a different way.

How in the world can we get to the truth when every little detail and factoid can be split two ways?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

did not transit the body.

In that, we are in absolute and total agreement.

Now, if one could only determine exactly what would cause a 2,000 to 2,200 fps projectile to become limited in it's velocity to the extent that it would only penetrate the upper back/shoulder of JFK to a shallow depth.

I will again reiterate:

The fact that the relatively clean-cut/punch-type oval wound of entry in the back of JFK which measured 4mm X 7mm, was declared by Dr. Boswell as being an "atypical" wound, and which had considerable fabric from the coat and shirt worn by JFK carried down into the wound of entry, is an EEI (essential element of information)

The fact that the deformed oval base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm x 7mm is another essential element of information.

The fact that a normal medium to high velocity bullet, striking in a nose first attitude DOES NOT carry fabric from clothing down into the wound of entry is another EEI.

Talk about your 4th graders there Cliff. At least most of them know about round pegs and round holes, oval pegs and oval holes, as well as 4mm X 7mm pegs and 4mm X 7mm holes.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

William,

You're right, and it's dumb of me to get into a tug of war over a non-issue like this.

But even the medical evidence is a mine field.

You look at a photo and say "That's where the bullet entered the back."

Then someone else says "The photo has been altered."

A doctor testifies about what he saw.

Another doctor, presumably one who was standing inches away from the first doctor, describes the wound in a different way.

How in the world can we get to the truth when every little detail and factoid can be split two ways?

How in the world can we get to the truth when every little detail and factoid can be split two ways

Through application of the clear and rational logic which you continue to display, along with some actual research of what is and what is not provable fact.