E-Mail

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.rense.com/general70/tjere.htm

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." -George Bernard Shaw

The eventual collapse of a great lie resembles the infamous collapse of an obscure 47-story building that few ever saw. When a great fiction falls, formerly accepted as a great historical fact, the collapse resembles a controlled demolition masquerading as a natural event.

Great lies have the burden of truth pressing upon them, constantly, incrementally, compounding weight like interest. Truth crushes the lie slowly and then the resounding crash occurs suddenly. Years later, students will laugh and wonder how anyone could ever be so stupid as to believe a discredited lie.

"All truth passes through three stages," wrote Schopenhauer. "First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

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

Speaking only for myself, I preference the "judgement" of history far and above the judgement of man.

At least History has not demonstrated the ultimate ability for complete and total ignorance and stupidity.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

XXXXX;

And I feel that the key to this matter revolves around events that occurred over the weekend of March 16, 1964.

One may want to add this "key" to the key ring as well.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

XXXXX;

Actually!

Although part of the email posting response is in fact directed to you, there are a few others who are progressively "seeing the light" and continue to email me questions as well.

Therefore, not being one to keep secrets in this matter, I decided to post "around" these emails and attempt to share information with all.

Recognizing that there remain those who will always be lost and continue to chase myths and mythological creatures.

Hope you do not mind the open sharing of information?

Your determination of the importance of the March 16, 1964 date is of course quite correct.

And I might add, you have dug into this far more than did I.

While the world watched the "Watch Me Flag" of the autopsy surgeons testifying before the WC, Mr. West was back in Dealy Plaza gaining that information necessary to, utilizing the FBI Scale Model, know exactly where to move/relocate the road signs in Dealy Plaza to aid in their planned assassination re-enactment.

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

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

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

One can take that to the bank!

Eisenberg was extremely instrumental as he was the one who appears to have been relegated to many obfuscations, which included the questioning of key witnesses AFTER the draft report was in fact completed and turned in.

Which basically eliminated several ("not-in-the-click") members of the WC from ever hearing about the last/Altgens shot.

However, what is absolutely provable is Eisenberg's "pre-knowledge" of items which could not have been unless he was attempting to cover/hide this information.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0139a.htm

1. On March 27, he gave the drawing to FBI Agent Robert Frazier which gave the street impact elevation of 418. (which is in reality for the Z313 impact).

The 12/5/63 SS Survey determined this impact elevation to be 418.35 (as was indicated in the West Note regarding discussion with Howlett as well as being shown on the actual SS Survey Plat.

Since the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 did not show this location for impact of the second shot, then Eisenberg could not have known this information (to provide to Frazier) on 3/27/64 unless he had access to the SS Survey Information and survey plat.

2. Eisenberg is of course the one who gave Simmons a copy of "some" survey plat, although we actually have no true idea as to whether or not it was the SS or the FBI.

Nevertheless, Eisenberg let the cat out of the bag either way.

The FBI Survey plat does not demonstrate the 265 foot shot (actually 267-feet) for the Z313 impact, whereas the SS Survey Plat does.

So, irrelevant as to what survey plat Eisenberg actually showed to Simmons (one most assuredly can not trust the introduction into evidence of WC documents such as CE585), Eisenberg again indicated his "prior knowledge" of the 265-foot shot distance to the Z313 impact, as well as a "prior knowledge" of attempting to cover up/delete the final/third shot distance of 298-feet, in his changing/correcting the shot distances which he gave to Simmons.

3. Eisenberg also demonstrates his initial attempt to "sell" us the FBI Survey Information by having given Simmons the 240-foot shot distance, as this is in reality the distance (242-feet) to the "fudge factor" location which the FBI attempted to completely delete Z313 and move the Second Shot back up the street some 24-feet.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

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

And, just as Gauthier was utilized to pull off the ever so "slight/sleight-of-hand" in regards to the altered survey data block (CE884)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container.

Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.

Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.)

Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.

It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line.

It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting.

I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore.

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

In event one desires to find the answers to the JFK assassination, it can be found within the obfuscations of the evidence.

And I might add, one can not accomplish this merely by review of the WC documents, and must expend a little time; effort; and of course monetary considerations.

Or, one could merely look around Dealey Plaza, claim to see mythological creatures hiding all over, and then write another of those purported "factual" books in this regards.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0139a.htm

My bottom line contention with all of this is that Eisenberg et al purposefully constructed a false solution to the crimes of Dealey Plaza even though they knew, because of work done by Robert West in December of 1963, that what they "reconstructed" was not the truth of the events of November 22, 1963. The question of course becomes, why?

A "half-truth" is not a falsehood. It is merely not the Whole-Truth.

Likewise, a 2/3rds or even a 1/3rd truth is not false.

Again, merely not the entire truth.

The falsehoods emanate from those obfuscations of the known information which would serve to demonstrate that the "Whole-Truth" was in fact known, yet one chose, for whatever the reason, to conspire to keep that knowledge from becoming public.

Thus, as correctly stated, presenting a "false solution" while knowingly being fully aware that it was not the entire solution.

There can be little doubt that you have placed an additional "target" onto another of those who were highly engaged in the obfuscation of what is in reality, simple facts.

[Mark Knight]

Tom:

I realize you've spent a great deal of time and effort in this thread to answer the questions of many others, and that's appreciated. But my initial emailed questions are something you've just in the last few posts touched upon: the SS re-enactment films, and the signage along Elm Street in DP.

There are, IMHO, obvious differences in the signage between the Z-film and the SS re-enactment film...differences which change the field of view around the area of the first shot. It's obvious to me, that by the various different paths taken in the SS film, that they were trying to closely duplicate the path of the limo in the Z-film...and the "markers" on the curb were instrumental in determining why attempt 1 was different from attempt 2, and so on.

But it's not really clear to me as to whether, at the time of the filmed re-enactment, they were attempting to find the truth, or whether the SS films were part of the attempt to hide the truth.

Any comments/opinions on that aspect?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom:

I realize you've spent a great deal of time and effort in this thread to answer the questions of many others, and that's appreciated. But my initial emailed questions are something you've just in the last few posts touched upon: the SS re-enactment films, and the signage along Elm Street in DP.

There are, IMHO, obvious differences in the signage between the Z-film and the SS re-enactment film...differences which change the field of view around the area of the first shot. It's obvious to me, that by the various different paths taken in the SS film, that they were trying to closely duplicate the path of the limo in the Z-film...and the "markers" on the curb were instrumental in determining why attempt 1 was different from attempt 2, and so on.

But it's not really clear to me as to whether, at the time of the filmed re-enactment, they were attempting to find the truth, or whether the SS films were part of the attempt to hide the truth.

Any comments/opinions on that aspect?

Mark;

Despite their failure to protect JFK, the SS Assassination re-enactment of December 3 & December 4, 1963 (with resulting Survey Plat dated 12/5/63) most closely determined the position of JFK at the time of each of the three shots.

With that stated:

It would appear that Shot#1 is based more so on when it could be confirmed that JFK was reacting to being hit. The SS as well as FBI both concurred with the #1 location.

The SS point for Shot#2/aka the Z313 impact was within one-foot (+/-) of that as determined by the WC.

The SS Determined a street elevation for this shot as being 418.35, and if recalled from Mr. West's notes for JJ Howlett, as being 28-feet from the impact of the last shot.

The WC determined the elevation for the Z313 impact as being 418. 48 and a location which would place the last shot some 29.7 feet farther down Elm St.

(4+95 minus 4+65.3)

And even though the SS as well as the FBI both left the third shot/aka Altgens impact in the same location, the WC decided to eliminate this altogether.

As was previously discussed, the SS Assassination (Zapruder position) re-enactment photo (what we have anyway) appears to have been taken from the absolutely exact elevation as was the Zapruder film.

However, there is an ever-so-slight horizontal displacement, which is easily understood.

It is the purported WC assassination re-enactment photo's which primarily give the trouble with the road signs.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I realize you've spent a great deal of time and effort in this thread to answer the questions of many others, and that's appreciated. But my initial emailed questions are something you've just in the last few posts touched upon: the SS re-enactment films, and the signage along Elm Street in DP.

There are, IMHO, obvious differences in the signage between the Z-film and the SS re-enactment film...differences which change the field of view around the area of the first shot. It's obvious to me, that by the various different paths taken in the SS film, that they were trying to closely duplicate the path of the limo in the Z-film...and the "markers" on the curb were instrumental in determining why attempt 1 was different from attempt 2, and so on.

But it's not really clear to me as to whether, at the time of the filmed re-enactment, they were attempting to find the truth, or whether the SS films were part of the attempt to hide the truth.

Any comments/opinions on that aspect?

Mark; (& others);

Although I am of the assumption that it is known and understood what you ask, this may also be one of those things in which one makes the proverbial A** for having assumed.

Your "compound" type question has a long and drawn out explanation. One in which the WC quite readily assumed that no single person would ever acquire the necessary information to figure out exactly what happened.

In that regards, since you have been around for some time, perhaps you will recall the attached survey notes of Mr. West.

These were provided previously, and not unlike many of the clues/keys to the puzzle, one may not understand the significance until such time as they understand other aspects of the (puzzle) game.

There are others who are also emailing me with information which they have come to understand as to exactly how many of the pieces fit together. Therefore, bear with me and hopefully, you; I; and those who need this information, can all go to the "promised land" in the same boat.

Be it sinking or not.

The attached handwritten notes came from Mr. West and were generated at the same time as SS Agent Howlett (March 16, 1964) requested information relative to the road signs in Dealey Plaza.

This little "key" to the puzzle reflects elevations relative to the first shot impact point elevation; the concrete curb elevation on which Zapruder stood; as well as various elevations relative to the steps and concrete landing alongside the Zapruder pedestal.

So, for that person who is of the opinion that the "weekender" after March 16, 1964 is of importance, rest assured that your information provides another "key" to the coffin which exposes the skeletons, as well as provides another "Nail" for nailing hides to the wall.

As regards the SS Re-enactment, one must recall what was previously stated in regards to this work.

It is in fact where Mr. West carried full horizontal and vertical control into Dealey Plaza; established stationing numbers (footage markers) down Main as well as Elm St. as well as made he first true survey notes in regards to this work.

The FBI work of 2/7/64 did absolutely no "survey work", other than the placement along Elm St. of their "changed" impact for the second shot.

The WC obviously had no intention of Mr. West having utilized that survey information gained during the SS Survey, and were it not for Mr. West having actually utilized this (the SS work), then there would be no means in which to accurately correlate the two seperate surveys.

A full mistake on the WC's part, I might add.

Likewise, with that information gained from the SS survey, one can then decipher most of that seperate work of the "Drommer" survey plat.

Now if one were to believe the WC testimony, then they would go home thinking that the SS work done on December 2/3/&4th, with the survey plat dated 12/5/63, was merely some "preliminary studies" which was done in order for Gauthier to have his tinker toy scale model of Dealy Plaza.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kelley1.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, we have witnesses today who are Thomas J. Kelley of the Secret Service; Leo J. Gauthier, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, and Robert A. Frazier of the FBI. They are going to testify concerning certain onsite tests made in Dallas at the scene of the assassination, and of preliminary studies which were made prior to the onsite tests at Dallas.

May we have them sworn in as a group?

Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the planning of the onsite tests at Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. KELLEY. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. And did you participate in the making of those tests?

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. On what date was the onsite testing made?

Mr. KELLEY. It was a week ago Sunday.

Mr. SPECTER. That would be May 24, 1964?

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Were certain tests made by the Secret Service shortly after the day of the assassination?

Mr. KELLEY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And were those tests reduced to photographs which were compiled in an album?

Mr. KELLEY. Yes; in Commission Document No. 88, we took some photographs of the scene of the assassination on December 5, 1963, from the window of the Texas Book Depository, and from the street.

Mr. SPECTER. The number which you refer to bears Commission No. 88, which is an index number which was given for internal Commission document filing, but it has not been marked as a Commission exhibit.

I would now like to mark it Commission Exhibit No. 875 and move for its admission into evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to reconstruct certain models to scale in connection with the investigation on the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene of the assassination itself?

Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4,. of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police

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

So, if one actually believed Specter & Company, the FBI area survey and complete assassination re-enactment as conducted by the SS, was little more than some "preliminary studies" which would appear to have been done in order that FBI Agent Gauthier could make himself a tinker toy model to play with.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

XXXXX:

Having posted that "additional" survey information which SS Agent JJ Howlett ask Mr. West to obtain on 3/16/64 (exacty locations; size; and height of roadsigns, as well as exact street elevation for shot#1 and elevations for the Zapruder pedestal as well as surrounding steps and landing).

I long ago posted a "write-up" in regards to the significance of having this information, as it applies to the road signs, along with Gauthier's "Tinker Toy" model.

So, with the FBI Dealy Plaza model, along with the EXACT information relative to Zapruders position and surround, along with the sign sizes and measurements, need I expand further on what one can do with all of this information during a "weekender" effort?

P.S. In case you did not notice, Eisenberg was the "math whiz" for the WC as well as being the one who had previously indicated that JFK was most likely hit in the Z204/206 period when he could be seen to "suddenly" drop his right hand and arm from the waving position.

[Mark Knight]

Good stuff, Tom. This is the kind of info I was seeking. Keep it coming.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And just as a matter of curiosity, the last person to visit the Assembly Room and its visual aids exhibits, was J. J. Howlett, and he did so alone and just before the Dealey Plaza events of May 24, 1964.

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

When one takes into consideration the "intense questioning" under which Howlett was subjected to, one thinks that perhaps he should have spilled all of the beans.

http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/about/za...film-chronology

1964

Following the release of the Warren Report and 26 volumes of evidence, the Secret Service produced a 22-minute educational film titled, Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The film was made in cooperation with the Dallas Police Department and Chief Jesse Curry and included Secret Service special agents John Joe Howlett and Talmadge Bailey. Dallas CBS affiliate KRLD provided production facilities. The film was supervised by KRLD news director Eddie Barker, narrated by Jim Underwood and filmed by Underwood and Henk Dewit. The film included re-creations of the motorcade route, the assassin's actions immediately after the shooting and a black-and-white version of the Zapruder film copy held by the Secret Service.

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

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

Over the next few weeks, the Zapruder film was at the evidentiary center of various law enforcement investigations. On November 29, 1963, SS Agent J.J. Howlett reported that using the Zapruder film he had been "unable to ascertain the exact location where Governor John B. Connally was struck." However, Howlett stated that "it had been ascertained from the movies that President Kennedy was struck with the first and third shots fired by the assassin, while Governor Connally was truck with the second." Both the initial Secret Service and FBI reports on the shooting reported it the same way, their analyses of the Zapruder film contradicting the later Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory.

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

Perhaps a small correction would be in order! The SS stated that JFK was impacted by the SECOND SHOT at street elevation 418.35, which is less than one-foot form the actual Z313 impact location as determined by the WC.

The FBI on the other hand, deleted the Z313/aka street elevation 418.35 impact, moved the Second Shot impact back up the street some 24-feet prior to JFK having even passed the Moorman/Hill/yellow curb mark location, and left the SS First Shot as well as Third/Last/Final shot impact down directly in front of James Altgens position, in it's place.

Note: It truly does get disturbing when persons attempt to expound on subjects of which they actually have little understanding.

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

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Issues_and_ev...irst_shot1.html

SA Howlett advised that it had been ascertained from the movies that President KENNEDY was struck with the first and third shots fired by the assassin, while Gov. CONNALLY was struck with the second shot. (CD5)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

Mr. SPECTER. And who else has been with you at the time you analyzed those films just stating in a general way without identifying each person present on each of the occasions?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service.

Representatives of the Commission were always present--normally Mr. Redlich, Mr. Specter, or Mr. Eisenberg were present.

On several occasions Mr. Ball and Mr. Belin were present. Mr. Rankin was present on some

I believe Mr. McCloy was present on one

Various representatives of the Commission were present.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich.

Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was present, with some aids, assistants.

Mr. SPECTER. Other aids from the FBI were also present?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted.

Mr. SPECTER. And were there representatives of the Secret Service participating in that onsite testing?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. Inspector Kelley was present, Agent John Howlett was present,

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

On the other hand! Since, Howlett was aware of the SS Survey which relatively accurately plotted the impact location of the three shots, as well as a copy of the 2/7/64 FBI Survey Plat in which the FBI had changed the impact location for the second shot/aka deleted the Z313 impact, then perhaps there are other considerations to be given to Howlett's actions.

Perhaps it all had to do with his FSSP!*

* Financial Security & Savings Plan!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Note: It truly does get disturbing when persons attempt to expound on subjects of which they actually have little understanding.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2b:thesecretservicesecrets

Nope Pat!

The "Mystery Photo" is in fact no mystery, just as your posted Survey Plat IS NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

As has been repeatedly stated; shown; etc; etc; etc;, it is in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

Which also is no "mystery" (except possibly to yourself)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mark;

Whether it be an "honor" or actual punishment for you open-minded questioning, you are now in receipt of one of those "ace-in-the-hole" documents which has to date never been fully released and/or revealed.

Attached, you will find the entire lower portion of the FBI Survey Plat which Mr. Robert West marked up and provided to SS Agent John Joe Howlett.

Also, I have included that portion of the Street section which shows the impact locations as well as the changes.

What is of course relevant is that Mr. West took the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 and "annotated" in pencil where the Second Shot impact location was as well as street elevation for impact of the shot, as determined by the US Secret Service work of December 1963.

Additionally, on the "street section", Mr. West also noted the "distance's" in which the FBI had changed the location of the second shot impact, in relationship to the Z313 (actual second shot) as well as the Altgens/third shot impact points.

This document is absolutely critical in determination as to exactly what was and what was not known, WHEN!

As well as creating a vital link in the "chain of understanding" of how we got to the WC's COS (Crock of Sh*t) from actually knowing the approximate impact location for all three shots fired, to the position of only knowing the impact location of the Z313 impact, and "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" scenario.

This document (survey plat) is also critical in that it demonstrates that those persons who gave street elevations of "418" in drawings:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0139a.htm

As well as slope distances of 265 feet and 240 feet for shots fired:

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high.

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.

Quite obviously knew far more than they were about to tell us.

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

Obvioiusly, since I am providing these documents, I can place no "legal" measures to prevent your sharing them with others.

I would however ask that you take a good look at all of the "wannabee's" who have, and continue to attempt to make a name for themselves through the usage of my research, as if they had actually found and generated this knowledge.

While in fact, they actually are only confusing the simple facts which they have as of yet come to even understand.

As you should be aware by now, my "provenance", in regards to the three-shots/three impacts, along with the trail which will always lead directly back to me, is fully established to include the US Government.

I am posting this email, and I will again post for yourself, as well as all to see, the WC Z313 impact survey notes with their determined street elevation of 418.48 for the second shot impact location.

Street elevation 418.35 v. Street elevation 418. 48, demonstrates the accuracies which one may wish to consider when giving thought to whether one should believe the SS or the WC.

Have a nice Xmas, and hopefully you will enter the New Year with a new knowledge in regards to the assassination of JFK and the WC's ultimate lie to us all.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm

Z313------------Survey Stationing 4+65.3---street elevation 418.48

FBI Survey notes:

Shot#1-----Survey Stationing 3+81.3-------street elevation 423.07 (same as SS Survey of 12/5/63)

Shot#2-----Survey Stationing 4+42.5-------street elevation 419.71 (corrected to 419.07 on Survey Plat)

Shot#3----=Survey Stationing 4+95---------street elevation 416.83 (same as SS Survey of 1/5/63)

Just perhaps with this, those who have little understanding of the subject matter and go around expousing that the Survey Plat of 2/7/64 (revision date) is the SS Survey Plat, may get their stories straight.

Of course and on the other hand, some people tend to become only more confused with the facts.

"We" have always gotten a kick out of confusing people with the facts.

P.S. I provided this information long ago Mark, just that it probably did not "register" then.

Which of course I did not expect it too at the time.

Tom

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

[Thomas H. Purvis]

and the "markers" on the curb were instrumental in determining why attempt 1 was different from attempt 2, and so on.

The "traffic cones" were utilized to mark that location in the approximate center of Elm St. in which the line of sight from Zapruder to JFK marked the determined impact point in the street for shots fired.

Thereafter, that point on the street was marked and the cones were relocated to the curb, directly lateral to the determined impact point.

As example:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4077-001.gif

Here, looking at the cone which is just past the alphalt patch (the Z313/aka Second Shot impact), one can see that this phot was not taken from the Zapruder position as any photo taken from the Zapruder position would be looking "back" towards the yellow curb mark where Moorman & Hill were standing.

And, of course, we have the third/last/final/aka Stationing 4+95 marking cone farther down the street.

Now!

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=41

In this photo one can see what appears to be the First Shot cone sitting on the street curb, just past the first lamp post.

One can also make out the Second Shot cone sitting on the street curb, just past the asphalt patch.

But it's not really clear to me as to whether, at the time of the filmed re-enactment, they were attempting to find the truth, or whether the SS films were part of the attempt to hide the truth.

Any comments/opinions on that aspect?

I would state that if it looks like the truth; smells like the truth; correlates with the witness testimonies; and correlates with the forensics of the wounds incurred, then in all probability it was originally the truth.

We will get back to these photo's as they clearly demonstrate other items of relative importance.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In a message dated 12/22/2008 9:38:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXXXXXX writes:

Of course the speeds in your article are all calculated based on limo position correlated to Z-film frames (and camera speed)? And that data was provided to Mr. West by the WC, correct? Proverbial “garbage in, garbage out? Is this, do you think, the ultimate proof of Z-film alteration? And if so, did this Z-film alteration have to have been done prior to 5 December, 1963?

No!

Since neither the SS nor the FBI made attempt to make the location of the third/last/final shot disappear, it would appear most unlikely that they became involved in such antics.

The "issue" of elapsed time v. distance covered did not become an issue until such time as AFTER the FBI survey plat and re-enactment of 2/7/64.

In this, the FBI had moved the Z313 impact back up Elm St. some 24.5 feet prior to it's actual filmed impact.

It would have been physically impossible for anyone to have gotten off a shot with the Carcano at the new FBI platted location and then also have gotten a shot off at the Z313 impact location (which the WC knew could not be made to disappear due to the yellow curb mark), unless of course the Presidential Limo was travelling only at speeds of 6 or so miles per hour.

Although the survey was never let out to the public, those within Time/Life must have been provided some knowledge as they commented on this (the FBI Work) and stated that it would have required a "Second Shooter".

Which, is in fact exactly what started all of the Second Assassin BS.

So, much in regards to gaining an understanding of the "Myths", has to do with attempting to unravel exactly how these Myths came to be generated to begin with.

In regards to the "Vehicle Speed".The WC designated locations on Elm St. and had Mr. West survey them in. The WC is totally responsible for the designation of what frame number of the Z-film each location supposedly represented.

Mr. West merely assigned the stationing number (distance footage from a known/given starting point).

Neither the WC's presented (altered) data:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm

Nor that unaltered data as taken from the original survey notes and/or an un-altered copy of the survey data block, are indicative of an accurately reflected vehicle speed.

In event that one can not derive a correct answer from the mathmatical data given, then, there is an error in the data.

Mr. West's survey footage distances are correct.

Which leaves ONLY the Z-film count/speed (aka 18.3 frames per second) as the alternative mathmatical portion of the equation which must therefore be incorrect.

Z-film alteration (addition of frames &/or deletion of frames) is the absolute ONLY alternative.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In a message dated 12/21/2008 4:22:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXXXXXXX.com writes:

I would venture to guess that the second and third shots were made with the iron sights rather than the scope, and that you are correct in calling the third a "snap" shot.

Most likely, the second shot was the one in which the "short stroke" of the bolt did not eject the

cartridge casing and it was thereafter jammed against the second round as the bolt went forward.

This would of course require additional time to "re-operate" the bolt and complete ejection of the first spent cartridge and re-acquire the target, and may help to explain the almost 5.9 second time lapse between the first shot and the second/aka Z313 shot.

Chad Zimmerman has claimed that the dent in the shell casing can be reproduced merely by the casing striking the chamber edge of the weapon as it is ejected.

Personally, I have never seen, nor had such an incidence such as this. Whereas the "short stroke" with the empty shell casing not being ejected and thereafter being driven against the next bullet as it rose to the chamber, is a quite common occurance.

The WC gave us another "Red Herring" in the 2.3 to 2.4 seconds to operate and accurately fire the weapon, and no one ever bothered to see that this is with utilization of the scope in target acquisition.

The weapon has been operated and fired in 1.6 seconds, and has been operated and accurately fired in 1.9 seconds.

1.9 X 18.3 =34.77 + 312 = 346.77/ Z347 (+/-) in which the last shot was easily gotten off by anyone who was experienced with the weapon.

Of course, the WC decided that there was nothing past Z334 worthy to see, and therefore published only to there.

Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg

Which of course does not show James Altgens:

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing,

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z349.jpg

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

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

"Sleight-of-Hand" tends to lose all of it's "Mystique" when one exposes exactly how simple it actually is.

Tom