Jump to content
The Education Forum

E-Mail


Recommended Posts

As I am again receiving email correspondence from another who it would appear has begun to understand as well as decipher many of the "ramblings" of THP, I will take the time and effort to post my responses here for all to (again) see and hopefully also get onto the correct road.

==================================================================

??????????;

When it is taken into consideration the actual volume of ( fill in the blank as deemed appropriate) (information/knowledge/BS) that I have previously posted, then it is not expected that one would recall much of previous answers to puzzles.

That happens to be one of the problems when one is given the "answers" and they in reality do not know what the question was.

And although the attached document relates primarily to the obfuscation of the medical evidence, the last three paragraphs continue to hold true for the Z-film/SS Assassination Re-enactment/& WC Assassination Re-enactment as well.

Perhaps if I again provide some of the "answers", then the questions to which they apply may also come to light.

And yes, further response will be in regards to your questions and statements.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes Thomas H. Purvis, I have question:

What is your objective with starting this thread and posting that letter?

I am still not able to "decipher your ramblings" (not my words, just your quote).

And could you please guide me to the "correct road"? I don't know what that is in your world.

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Thomas H. Purvis, I have question:

What is your objective with starting this thread and posting that letter?

I am still not able to "decipher your ramblings" (not my words, just your quote).

And could you please guide me to the "correct road"? I don't know what that is in your world.

Wim

It is most unlikely that anyone who would be sufficiently foolish to actually believe, and then pay Bob Vernon for the purported answers to the JFK assassination, would either recognize or understand the correct road, even were it to jump up and hit them in the face.

Lastly, the email was provided for those who are most assuredly begining to grasp the full extent of the WC duplicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Thomas H. Purvis, I have question:

What is your objective with starting this thread and posting that letter?

I am still not able to "decipher your ramblings" (not my words, just your quote).

And could you please guide me to the "correct road"? I don't know what that is in your world.

Wim

It is most unlikely that anyone who would be sufficiently foolish to actually believe, and then pay Bob Vernon for the purported answers to the JFK assassination, would either recognize or understand the correct road, even were it to jump up and hit them in the face.

Lastly, the email was provided for those who are most assuredly begining to grasp the full extent of the WC duplicity.

http://www.bobvernon.com/Letter.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

I have tried several times to follow what it is you are doing but quite frankly it takes up a lot of time and without at least a better grounded understanding to start with, it is a struggle.

Is there any chance you could summarise what you have been working on, where you are at with it now and what your intentions are from here on out? - I would most sincerely like to understand it if you have a 'crash course for dummies' that could bring me up to speed.

Thanks - Steve

PS: You can do this either by PM or Email if you do not wish to do so on the forum. However, I am sure there are more readers/members like me who would also like to understand more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with you, Tom, that the WCR has created nothing but confusion. It is a myth, built on layers of outright lies, rumor, innuendo and legalese, strung together to attempt to make something cohesive.

To get back to basics, the WCR didn't even agree with the FBI Summary Report, the review of which was its ostensible purpose. Rather than acknowledging there were conflicts, they simply suppressed the FBI report and reworked the wording until they got what they thought they wanted.

But, as we have seen repeatedly through the years, whenever anyone attempts to *prove* the WCR they end up falling flat on their faces. A myth cannot be *proved*. It can only be hyped and force-fed to the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

If you can figure out what Tom Purvis is saying, please let the rest of us know. From what little I can gather, he believes Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, with that old, defective weapon (Tom thinks he was actually a crack shot, and that the weapon was actually solid and reliable). He also thinks the Warren Commission engaged in a deliberate cover up, but since he supports their impossible conclusions, it is hard to determine exactly what it is he feels they were covering up. Finally, I believe he thinks the Zapruder film (maybe other films, as well) were altered. Again, since he supports the official version of the shooting, precisely why they would alter the film(s) is something only he can explain.

As for all the other stuff in his countless, incredibly long posts, I couldn't tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, apparently you haven't been able to follow Tom's posts, either. If I might add my understanding of what Tom has posted, Tom shows that the SS and the FBI both allowed for three shots that hit JFK, based upon the survey work of a Mr. West, who surveyed points in Dealy Plaza for both the SS and for the FBI. The surveys show what the WC refers to as the first and the third shots, but what were on the survey as shots 1 and 2. Shot 3 was further down Elm. Tom's 3-shot scenario--all at under 100 yards, and within 8 or more seconds and not the 6 seconds the WC tried to sell.

As for the rifle...LHO ordered, and Klein's apparently shipped, a model 91/24 Carcano 6.5 mm rifle. The 91/24 had left the factory with a progressive-gain twist rifled barrel, but as sold by Klein's, the barrel had been shortened and its accuracy was a joke. Yet the rifle recovered in the TSBD was a model 91/38 Carcano 6.5mm rifle. This rifle was produced without the progressive-gain twist rifling, and was a fairly accurate firearm.

Tom also has shown evidence that, while Oswald might not have been the best rifleman ever turned out by the USMC, he was certainly capable of making 3 accurate shots at under 100 yards in an 8-second timeframe. What Tom HASN'T insisted is that Oswald is unequivocably the triggerman; he was merely CAPABLE of making the shots, and he worked in the TSBD. Tom also disputes the SBT as hawked by Spector and Company, as Tom's position is that Conally's wounds were caused by his being struck by two separate bullets/fragments.

[Have I about covered it in a nutshell, Tom?]

Now, Don...since that differs consderably from what the WC was peddling, how do you conclude that "[Tom] supports the official version of the shooting" ??

I'm not Einstein, but even I was able to detect those differences between Tom Purvis' tale and the one told by the WC...and Tom's has a lot more ring of truth to it than the Commission's. While Tom and I don't see eye-to-eye on every point, I find him more convincing, based upon the evidence, that any scenario of body-snatching and wound alteration [except for the examination/sectioning of a second, intact brain] I've yet heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Unlike a lot of researchers now, I don't necessarily accept any of the official story. This includes anything about the Mannlicher Carcano. First, it hasn't been established that Oswald purchased the rifle. The whole question of "Hidell" is shrouded in mystery. I tend to think that the "Hidell" alias was concocted as part of the framing of Oswald. Peter Dale Scott was the first to point out, I believe, that the Selective Service card Oswald was allegedly carrying, with his photo and the name of "Hidell" on it, would have been of no use to anyone actually trying to use it, since real Selective Service cards had no photos on them. The early critics went into great depth on the whole question of the Klein's ad, which rifle would have been ordered, etc. They also examined the post office box, allegedly ordered by Oswald under Hidell's name, and the reasonable doubt about that (not to mention the common sense questions of why anyone would have ordered his weapons through the mail, easily traced to a p.o. box, when they could be easily bought locally). There is a lot of confusion there, to say the least.

Even if Tom has a different scenario than the Warren Commission's (and it isn't much different), he is still promoting the "Oswald-did-it-alone" theory, which works against the evidence as we know it. There is abundant evidence that JFK was shot at least once, and probably twice, from the front. Honest research cannot compel one to believe all shots came from behind. We have the laws of physics, not to mention most of the eyewitness testimony, that tells us at least one shot came from somewhere around the grassy knoll. These are very old, familiar arguments, and I'm sure you've heard them all before. Still, they bear repeating, when someone so adamantly disputes them.

The only thing we know for certain about Oswald's shooting ablility are his test scores as a marine. They show him to have deteriorated in ability over the course of time, with his last score being, in the words of the government itself, representative of "a rather poor shot." None of the government (or mainstream media) expert shooters, in all the "reconstructions" of the shooting (with none being really identical), have been able to match Oswald's alleged feat. Even if you throw in two extra seconds, as Tom does (this argument was started by lone nutter extraordinaire Gerald Posner, and is not credible), it is still a dubious proposition that a "rather poor shot" could do the job (remember, there is absolutely no credible evidence that Oswald ever shot a gun again after leaving the marines, fresh off his poor showing on the firing range).

I bear no animosity towards Tom, and certainly not towards you. I started trying to read his posts a long time ago, but had to give up because of their length and unclarity. I think that a lot of great citizen researchers have shown, over the course of time, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot anyone on November 22, 1963. To believe otherwise is, imho, to work against truth and justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me for butting in to an area where I have no knowledge, but I saw mention of records and such. It made me think it might be worth mentioning something.

My own records record nothing of me qualifying as a marksman with the SLR (FN Self Loading Rifle), as well as a couple of other minor courses. A Commander who works with me is just preparing to leave full time service. He was going his records, and discovered a couple of things: although there was record of him going through operational flying training, there is no record of him ever having completed his observer course (Observer = Navigator). Yet he has wings, has flown for thousands of hours, and has trained lots of people... which there is also no record of. The records omit any reference to him being a Qualified Observer Instructor (QOI) even though there are numerous people who can attest to having been trained by him.

My point is this: records can omit information. Just because something is not in someone's records does not mean that they did not do something.

Just something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight Posted Today, 10:18 AM

Don, apparently you haven't been able to follow Tom's posts, either. If I might add my understanding of what Tom has posted, Tom shows that the SS and the FBI both allowed for three shots that hit JFK, based upon the survey work of a Mr. West, who surveyed points in Dealy Plaza for both the SS and for the FBI. The surveys show what the WC refers to as the first and the third shots, but what were on the survey as shots 1 and 2. Shot 3 was further down Elm. Tom's 3-shot scenario--all at under 100 yards, and within 8 or more seconds and not the 6 seconds the WC tried to sell.

As for the rifle...LHO ordered, and Klein's apparently shipped, a model 91/24 Carcano 6.5 mm rifle. The 91/24 had left the factory with a progressive-gain twist rifled barrel, but as sold by Klein's, the barrel had been shortened and its accuracy was a joke. Yet the rifle recovered in the TSBD was a model 91/38 Carcano 6.5mm rifle. This rifle was produced without the progressive-gain twist rifling, and was a fairly accurate firearm.

Tom also has shown evidence that, while Oswald might not have been the best rifleman ever turned out by the USMC, he was certainly capable of making 3 accurate shots at under 100 yards in an 8-second timeframe. What Tom HASN'T insisted is that Oswald is unequivocably the triggerman; he was merely CAPABLE of making the shots, and he worked in the TSBD. Tom also disputes the SBT as hawked by Spector and Company, as Tom's position is that Conally's wounds were caused by his being struck by two separate bullets/fragments.

[Have I about covered it in a nutshell, Tom?]

Now, Don...since that differs consderably from what the WC was peddling, how do you conclude that "[Tom] supports the official version of the shooting" ??

I'm not Einstein, but even I was able to detect those differences between Tom Purvis' tale and the one told by the WC...and Tom's has a lot more ring of truth to it than the Commission's. While Tom and I don't see eye-to-eye on every point, I find him more convincing, based upon the evidence, that any scenario of body-snatching and wound alteration [except for the examination/sectioning of a second, intact brain] I've yet heard.

You mention two types of Carcano models, ones that Tom has alluded to in the past.

1. Which model was it that was photographed in the backyard photos?

2. Which model was it that was photographed as having been retrieved from the TSBD right after the deed? I am referring to the photo of the rifle as it is being held high, by Lt. Day.

3. If LHO ordered the 91/24 rifle for the sum of USD 19.90 or something, and if on the otherhand he was claimed to possess a 91/38, wasn't it not a more expensive model? How likely was it that Klein's made this error?

4. Did Klein's make such mistakes with other Carcano orders in 1963? Any knowledge of such?

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is most unlikely that anyone who would be sufficiently foolish to actually believe, and then pay Bob Vernon for the purported answers to the JFK assassination, would either recognize or understand the correct road, even were it to jump up and hit them in the face.

Lastly, the email was provided for those who are most assuredly begining to grasp the full extent of the WC duplicity.

You're funny, Thomas H. Purvis. First you don't answer my question, then you paint Bob Vernon as an irreliable jerk, but then you use his lies to "prove" your point about Files. That's called picking witnesses and evidence how it suits you ...... like the Warren Commission did. I am most assuredly beginning to grasp a duplicity here. :rolleyes:

Here's at least one statement from Files that you propably find credible:

letterfragment.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, apparently you haven't been able to follow Tom's posts, either. If I might add my understanding of what Tom has posted, Tom shows that the SS and the FBI both allowed for three shots that hit JFK, based upon the survey work of a Mr. West, who surveyed points in Dealy Plaza for both the SS and for the FBI. The surveys show what the WC refers to as the first and the third shots, but what were on the survey as shots 1 and 2. Shot 3 was further down Elm. Tom's 3-shot scenario--all at under 100 yards, and within 8 or more seconds and not the 6 seconds the WC tried to sell.

As for the rifle...LHO ordered, and Klein's apparently shipped, a model 91/24 Carcano 6.5 mm rifle. The 91/24 had left the factory with a progressive-gain twist rifled barrel, but as sold by Klein's, the barrel had been shortened and its accuracy was a joke. Yet the rifle recovered in the TSBD was a model 91/38 Carcano 6.5mm rifle. This rifle was produced without the progressive-gain twist rifling, and was a fairly accurate firearm.

Tom also has shown evidence that, while Oswald might not have been the best rifleman ever turned out by the USMC, he was certainly capable of making 3 accurate shots at under 100 yards in an 8-second timeframe. What Tom HASN'T insisted is that Oswald is unequivocably the triggerman; he was merely CAPABLE of making the shots, and he worked in the TSBD. Tom also disputes the SBT as hawked by Spector and Company, as Tom's position is that Conally's wounds were caused by his being struck by two separate bullets/fragments.

[Have I about covered it in a nutshell, Tom?]

Now, Don...since that differs consderably from what the WC was peddling, how do you conclude that "[Tom] supports the official version of the shooting" ??

I'm not Einstein, but even I was able to detect those differences between Tom Purvis' tale and the one told by the WC...and Tom's has a lot more ring of truth to it than the Commission's. While Tom and I don't see eye-to-eye on every point, I find him more convincing, based upon the evidence, that any scenario of body-snatching and wound alteration [except for the examination/sectioning of a second, intact brain] I've yet heard.

Please move to the front of the class along with those few others who actually care sufficiently for the facts to delve into them.

A few "minor" corrections:

1. The SS originally surveyed in an impact location for ALL THREE of the shot impact points.

Which, included the Z313 (as we reference it) impact as well as the later third shot which impacted at survey stationing 4+95.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm

Which happens to be some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313/aka Second Shot impact point, as well as being in the exact location where James Altgens and others informed us that the third shot was fired at.

2. The FBI was full aware of this "Third Shot" impact point and left it in it's place due to the knowledge as relates to the entry and exit points of the wounds to JFK's head which were observed by Kellerman and others at the autopsy. Which wound (entry at base of neck into hairline and exit in frontal lobe vicinity of skull) could have only occurred if JFK was leaned completely forward at the waist with his head down.

It was the Z313 impact location which the FBI attempted to make disappear and move back up Elm St. some 24+ feet.

Which could not work due to the yellow curb marks which are clear markers as to JFK's location at the time of this shot.

3. It was the WC who quite obviously dreamed up the fantastic idea as to how to make the third shot (aka the one and only true "Magic Bullet") completely disappear, claim that Z313 impact was the last shot, and create the wonderful "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"!

4. In regards to the rifle! All that we know for certain is that what was officially ordered from Klein's was a complete "junker" carbine in which the person ordering could have received either the completely worthless Model 91/24, or could have received a slightly more accurate old model of the actual Model 91 TS Carbine. Which, was only marginally better than the Model 91/24.

The Model 91/38 Short Rifle which was utilized to assassinate JFK was an extremely accurate weapon which compared in accuracy to the US issue M-14, which also happens to still be the basis of many US Sniper weapons.

So, those who continue to expouse the garbage in regards to the Carcano, merely continue to demonstrate their complete ignorance of the facts.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

5. Lee Harvey Oswald was an absolutely EXCELLENT shot when firing from a fixed and stable firing position, at ranges up to 500 yards. His entire shooting record indicates that he entered the USMC as such, and his final "RANGEFIRE" qualification so demonstrates,

He fired in the UPPER range of accuracy (90+ percentile rating) for all three of these positions.

The longest shot in Dealey Plaza (third shot impact at Stationing 4+95) was only 98 yards. Basically, Boy Scout shooting ranges.

None of which sufficiently demonstrates that LHO was the actual shooter, merely that it was not a difficult feat to shoot JFK three times from the sixth floor window of the TSDB within an elapsed time of almost 9-seconds, at a maximum range of 98 yards.

And, since there was an obvious "conspiracy" related to LHO and his actions, then, rest assured that we will now most probably never know the exact circumstances which lead to the shooting of JFK, as well as never obtain ABSOLUTE verification as to whether or not LHO was the shooter or not.

Which happens to be one of those "SINS" of the Warren Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me for butting in to an area where I have no knowledge, but I saw mention of records and such. It made me think it might be worth mentioning something.

My own records record nothing of me qualifying as a marksman with the SLR (FN Self Loading Rifle), as well as a couple of other minor courses. A Commander who works with me is just preparing to leave full time service. He was going his records, and discovered a couple of things: although there was record of him going through operational flying training, there is no record of him ever having completed his observer course (Observer = Navigator). Yet he has wings, has flown for thousands of hours, and has trained lots of people... which there is also no record of. The records omit any reference to him being a Qualified Observer Instructor (QOI) even though there are numerous people who can attest to having been trained by him.

My point is this: records can omit information. Just because something is not in someone's records does not mean that they did not do something.

Just something to consider.

I long ago, on another forum, posted considerable information relatiave to LHO's military record file.

On this forum, I have posted considerable in regards to his RANGEFIRE QUALIFICATION and how it appears that the WC intentionally went to the efforts to show that LHO was sufficiently good enough to have accomplished what they claimed, yet, not quite good enough to have actually gotten three hits from three shots.

Tom

P.S. My records once indicated that I was a Helicopter Pilot, having attended Rotary Wing Flight School at Ft. Rucker, AL, while at the same time indicating that I was in Vietnam (which was accurate) during the exact same time period. (I am not now, nor have I ever been an aircraft pilot of any shape or form)

Personally, I am aware of about a dozen errors in my own Military Records. Most unique being award of my "Master" Parachutist Badge to "Thomas P. Purvis", while I am actually "Thomas H."

Without even being aware of this, years later when my first son was born, he was named "Thomas P. Purvis", and even though not yet born and never in military service, he has a set of JFK Special Warfare Center orders which awards "Thomas P. Purvis" the Master Parachutist Badge.

LHO was an absolutely EXCELLENT shot at ranges to 500 yards when firing from a fixed position!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

I have tried several times to follow what it is you are doing but quite frankly it takes up a lot of time and without at least a better grounded understanding to start with, it is a struggle.

Is there any chance you could summarise what you have been working on, where you are at with it now and what your intentions are from here on out? - I would most sincerely like to understand it if you have a 'crash course for dummies' that could bring me up to speed.

Thanks - Steve

PS: You can do this either by PM or Email if you do not wish to do so on the forum. However, I am sure there are more readers/members like me who would also like to understand more.

Done here on on previous occassions.

1. The WC is a complete misrepresentation of the simple facts of the assassination. (aka/ a lie!)

2. JFK was assassinated by shots fired ONLY from the sixth floor window of the TSDB.

3. All shots fired in the assassination, came from the Model 91/38 Carcano (Short) Rifle which was recovered on the sixth floor.

4. Three shots were fired in the assassination shot sequence, and all three shots struck JFK.

5. There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as promoted and fostered in the WC lie.

6. The Z313 impact IS NOT the last shot fired. It is in fact, (as stated by multiple witnesses) the second shot impact.

7. As such, there was an elapsed time of almost 5.9 seconds between the first shot and the second shot/aka Z313 impact.

8. The last shot was the "snap shot" as it occurred in less than 2.0 seconds of elapsed time.

Lastly, "Tom" has known most of this for a considerable number of years and fully recognized the difficultly in swimming upstream against the flow of BS surrounding this subject matter.

Nevertheless, the "trail" to the facts will always lead back to me.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...