The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories

[Cliff Varnell]

Actually! I consider "half-wit" jerks to be those who launch into great conspiracy scenario's without having even come to understand the most simple aspects of...physical facts.

Tom's posts are frequently rich in unintended irony in regards to understanding

the simplest facts of the most obvious physical evidence, to wit:

Fact: The bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are a good

3 inches below the "back of the neck" inshoot of Tom Purvis' 3-shot scenario.

http://subversivehistory.com/

Fact: On Main St. JFK's jacket rode up into his hairline about 90 seconds

before the shooting, but then proceeded to drop into a normal position on JFK's

back as the limo proceeded thru Dealey Plaza.

Fact: At the corner of Main and Houston, JFK brushed the back of his head

with his right hand, pushing the jacket down into a horizontal fold across his right

shoulder. The jacket collar was below the hairline but above the top of the shirt

collar.

Fact: On Houston St., JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie Connally and

when he leaned back his jacket collar dropped to reveal the shirt collar.

Fact: At circa Z178, JFK turned his head to the right and began to wave his

right arm, which caused the jacket to fall bit more into the minor fold seen in

Betzner #3 (Z186), taken a split second before he was shot.

The obvious physical evidence thoroughly debunks Purvis' "back of the neck" scenario.

To claim otherwise is an act of intellectual dishonesty, imo.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

For him to say "so what?" to Ron's question about the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head defies credulity. Tell us, Tom, exactly why all those Dallas medical personnel were "mistaken" to such an unbelievable degree, all about the same "nonexistent" wound on the head of the most famous patient they had ever had, or ever would have.

Like the Warren Commission, which you incomprehensibly castigate for "covering up" what is essentially your own position on the subject, you simply ignore evidence that contradicts your preordained conclusion (which unfortunately for you consists of virtually all evidence in the official record).

From your gratuitous, incorrect use of exclamation points (maybe you ought to seek out a career as a comic book writer) to your dismissive attitude towards well documented facts (the unreliability of the carcano alleged to belong to Oswald, Oswald's mediocre shooting record, etc.), you offer little more than comic relief. You ought to thank everyone here for being so inexplicably patient with you.

[Harry J.Dean]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

For him to say "so what?" to Ron's question about the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head defies credulity. Tell us, Tom, exactly why all those Dallas medical personnel were "mistaken" to such an unbelievable degree, all about the same "nonexistent" wound on the head of the most famous patient they had ever had, or ever would have.

Like the Warren Commission, which you incomprehensibly castigate for "covering up" what is essentially your own position on the subject, you simply ignore evidence that contradicts your preordained conclusion (which unfortunately for you consists of virtually all evidence in the official record).

From your gratuitous, incorrect use of exclamation points (maybe you ought to seek out a career as a comic book writer) to your dismissive attitude towards well documented facts (the unreliability of the carcano alleged to belong to Oswald, Oswald's mediocre shooting record, etc.), you offer little more than comic relief. You ought to thank everyone here for being so inexplicably patient with you.

For Ed Feser also

http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

"Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

As brain matter is ejected through the enlarged exit wound, it exerts a recoil force in the opposite direction, or backward. If this force is strong enough relative to other forces being experienced by the head at that time (which is well after the hit), the head may actually move backward (the so-called "jet effect"). If the recoil force is small relative to those other forces (such as neuromuscular reactions), the head may more in some other direction, with its motion being only modified by the jet effect.

Certainly would appear that this guy knows what he is speaking of.

At least to me!

++=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===========

So! Exactly why would one continue to listen to psuedo-scientists when truly qualified experts have expounded considerably on the subject matter?

So Dr. Di Maio is giving us a warmed over version of the JET EFECT, a la Alvarez. "The head MAY actually move backwards"

Surely Tom, as an army man, you must be aware that the JET EFFECT theory was DISPROVED in experiments conducted by the US ARMY, an organization that surely knows a great deal about the effects of bullets on the human body. These experiments were described to the HSCA by Larry Sturdivan, who showed films of bullets striking human skulls. As Sturdivan points out, EACH OF THE SKULLS MOVED IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE BULLET.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=427

[We saw the same thing replicated recently in the Discovery program INSIDE THE TARGET CAR. The rifle bullet drove the skull violently forward, in the same direction as the bullet. There was no jet effect].

THe US army has proven that there is NO SUCH THING as a JET EFFECT, so even if Dr. Di Miao had the best medical training in the world that cannot change the outcome of the army experiments (of which Dr. Di Maio seems competely unaware).

The JET EFFECT was a beautiful theory proposed by a Nobel Prize winning physicist. As Huxley once said, the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.

Edited February 18, 2009 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Actually! I consider "half-wit" jerks to be those who launch into great conspiracy scenario's without having even come to understand the most simple aspects of...physical facts.

Tom's posts are frequently rich in unintended irony in regards to understanding

the simplest facts of the most obvious physical evidence, to wit:

Fact: The bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are a good

3 inches below the "back of the neck" inshoot of Tom Purvis' 3-shot scenario.

http://subversivehistory.com/

Fact: On Main St. JFK's jacket rode up into his hairline about 90 seconds

before the shooting, but then proceeded to drop into a normal position on JFK's

back as the limo proceeded thru Dealey Plaza.

Fact: At the corner of Main and Houston, JFK brushed the back of his head

with his right hand, pushing the jacket down into a horizontal fold across his right

shoulder. The jacket collar was below the hairline but above the top of the shirt

collar.

Fact: On Houston St., JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie Connally and

when he leaned back his jacket collar dropped to reveal the shirt collar.

Fact: At circa Z178, JFK turned his head to the right and began to wave his

right arm, which caused the jacket to fall bit more into the minor fold seen in

Betzner #3 (Z186), taken a split second before he was shot.

The obvious physical evidence thoroughly debunks Purvis' "back of the neck" scenario.

To claim otherwise is an act of intellectual dishonesty, imo.

FACT!

JFK's coat has TWO seperate and distinct bullet hole penetrations in the back.

1. That penetration which was created by CE399.

2. That penetration which was created by the Third/Last/Final/Altgens location impact in which the bullet struck the coat just below the edge of the coat collar, penetrated through the coat and liner on an obtuse/oblique angle, and then exited the coat to strike JFK in the back of the head at the lower edge of the hairline.

So Mr. "intellectual dishonesty", exactly when was it that you were going to get around to telling us all of this fantastic information relative to the coat.

Even were I "intellectually dishonest", it would still be far better than being completely ignorant of the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts of the assassination.

And, by the way, your "non-bunch" theory has been discredited by virtually every qualified expert who has even taken a look at the subject matter.

[b]"Actually! I consider "half-wit" jerks to be those who launch into great conspiracy scenario's without having even come to understand the most simple aspects of the physical facts"[/b]

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

For him to say "so what?" to Ron's question about the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head defies credulity. Tell us, Tom, exactly why all those Dallas medical personnel were "mistaken" to such an unbelievable degree, all about the same "nonexistent" wound on the head of the most famous patient they had ever had, or ever would have.

Like the Warren Commission, which you incomprehensibly castigate for "covering up" what is essentially your own position on the subject, you simply ignore evidence that contradicts your preordained conclusion (which unfortunately for you consists of virtually all evidence in the official record).

From your gratuitous, incorrect use of exclamation points (maybe you ought to seek out a career as a comic book writer) to your dismissive attitude towards well documented facts (the unreliability of the carcano alleged to belong to Oswald, Oswald's mediocre shooting record, etc.), you offer little more than comic relief. You ought to thank everyone here for being so inexplicably patient with you.

From your demonstrated complete lack of knowledge relative to the Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle, as well as LHO's shooting ability, it would appear that perhaps you should consider writing more BS JFK assassination conspiracy books.

There will always remain those who are so completely ignorant of the factual evidence that they will continue to believe most anything, even when stated by someone who themselves know nothing.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

"Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

As brain matter is ejected through the enlarged exit wound, it exerts a recoil force in the opposite direction, or backward. If this force is strong enough relative to other forces being experienced by the head at that time (which is well after the hit), the head may actually move backward (the so-called "jet effect"). If the recoil force is small relative to those other forces (such as neuromuscular reactions), the head may more in some other direction, with its motion being only modified by the jet effect.

Certainly would appear that this guy knows what he is speaking of.

At least to me!

++=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===========

So! Exactly why would one continue to listen to psuedo-scientists when truly qualified experts have expounded considerably on the subject matter?

So Dr. Di Maio is giving us a warmed over version of the JET EFECT, a la Alvarez. "The head MAY actually move backwards"

Surely Tom, as an army man, you must be aware that the JET EFFECT theory was DISPROVED in experiments conducted by the US ARMY, an organization that surely knows a great deal about the effects of bullets on the human body. These experiments were described to the HSCA by Larry Sturdivan, who showed films of bullets striking human skulls. As Sturdivan points out, EACH OF THE SKULLS MOVED IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE BULLET.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=427

[We saw the same thing replicated recently in the Discovery program INSIDE THE TARGET CAR. The rifle bullet drove the skull violently forward, in the same direction as the bullet. There was no jet effect].

THe US army has proven that there is NO SUCH THING as a JET EFFECT, so even if Dr. Di Miao had the best medical training in the world that cannot change the outcome of the army experiments (of which Dr. Di Maio seems competely unaware).

The JET EFFECT was a beautiful theory proposed by a Nobel Prize winning physicist. As Huxley once said, the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.

1. Quite obviously, it would serve little purpose to attempt to explain (information which is now so readily available on the internet) the considerable difference in shooting a bullet into the head of a living human being as opposed to shooting a skull.

2. Quite obviously, it would also serve little purpose in attempt to explain (information which is now so readily available on the internet) the tremendous build-up of internal cranial pressure which is created when a bullet penetrates the skull of a living human being.

3. Quite obviously, it would also serve little purpose to attempt to explain (information which is now so readily available on the internet) the effect on the head of the human species when some 2,000 to 3,000 PSI of internal cranial pressure is suddenly and rapidly released from the top; frontal; and right frontal head of the human species as a result of the "blow-out" of bullet fragments having ripped the skull and scalp apart and created a massive wound of exit through which the confined pressure can escape from the skull.

Therefore:

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. (William G. McAdoo)

[John Simkin]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

I agree but he is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

3. Quite obviously, it would also serve little purpose to attempt to explain (information which is now so readily available on the internet) the effect on the head of the human species when some 2,000 to 3,000 PSI of internal cranial pressure is suddenly and rapidly released from the top; frontal; and right frontal head of the human species as a result of the "blow-out" of bullet fragments having ripped the skull and scalp apart and created a massive wound of exit through which the confined pressure can escape from the skull.

Therefore:

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. (William G. McAdoo)

And Mister McAdoo is quite right right too.

Experts from the United States Army demonstrate experimentally that the JET EFFECT THEORY/CONJECTURE/SPECULATION/RATIONALIZATION has no basis in REALITY.

Not to worry, Lt. Colonel Purvis (U.S. Army, Ret.?) tells us:

The U.S. army knows nothing about guns or bullets or their effects on the human body.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

I agree but he is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

Hey John:

Topic Title includes "The Trouble With Conspiracy Theories", does it not?

In event that the "conspiracy theory" can be readily shot full of factual holes, then it most assuredly has trouble.

In that same regards, there exists ABSOLUTELY ZERO facts that anything other than three shots were fired in the assassination; as well as the simple facts that all three of these shots came from the sixth floor window of the TSDB

and the Model 91/328 Carcano Short Rifle which was found at this location.

Call it "Tough Love" if you will, and accept it or not, but: JFK was assassinated by three shots fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB, and to all probability, LHO was the shooter.

Those few here who have demonstrated either an open mind or else the willingness to "re-learn" something in which what they were originally exposed to as having some factual basis, are the ones who gain from any open-ended discussions.

That LHO's participation in the assassination does not fit in with your highly biased and incorrect concept and perception of the American Government and our Capitalistic System, is not my problem.

As bad as this system is and with all of it's flaws and errors, it remains the single best form of government which has surfaced on this planet to date. (Which is of course scary in itself).

And I might add, the theory of the system is and remains the best. Were it not for the fact that PEOPLE are involved in this system, then neither it's great achievements nor it's great disappointments would be a matter of fact and record.

[John Dolva]

Tom : "As bad as this system is and with all of it's flaws and errors, it remains the single best form of government which has surfaced on this planet to date." I'd argue that the Swiss and Cuban system are superior.

_____________________

I can live quite happily with whatever Tom may think of me. I've never met him.

However, over the time that Tom has participated in this Forum, he has provided much. For me the ever present focus on Louisiana, and particularly Baton Rouge and New Orleans has been inspiring. His postings re certain groupings like The White Chamelias (btw as per my usual speculative style, has anyone a photo of a bunch of such in DP in the days following the assasinations?), Tulane University, the MSC files, background in history and genealogy(in particular) are a very valuable source from, what I see as, a rather dry witted, very bright, scientific, well researched, no nonsense Ole Boy. Everyone has failings (even me(apart from my modesty of course)). There are definitely anomalies but overall Tom doesn't deserve this roasting. Naturally he'll give as good as he gets, and like most of us makes mistakes. He has shown an ability to accept them and change in viewpoint, all pointing at some good principles. Why do people not want to ask him polite questions? He'll answer if he can or wishes. Take or leave the answer. That's up to you/me. Same with most here. Sure Tom tends to go a bit troppo at times re posting binges, but many of us do that at times. Only John Simkin stands out to me not so much for his line of research, but the care he takes in presenting it and particularly the simple fact that this Forum exist at all in the format it takes. Don't forget this is going to read by our children and others children and their children, 'when we've all shuffled off this mortal coil'. As far as trust goes I only trust Jesus. EVERYONE else gets some measure of the benefits of doubt. That doesn't mean I like or dislike anyone. But I have at times been rather brash. Life on earth's only got so many minutes in it.

[Cliff Varnell]

FACT!

JFK's coat has TWO seperate and distinct bullet hole penetrations in the back.

Utter hokum. You obviously never studied the jacket and instead rely

on mis-characterizing witness testimony.

Your game is up, Tom.

This close-up is so clear that anyone can study the upper defect and

the slice marks in the fabric and understand that it is a puncture hole

made by an implement, not a bullet.

http://subversivehistory.com/

The two holes do not line up!

1. That penetration which was created by CE399.

2. That penetration which was created by the Third/Last/Final/Altgens location impact in which the bullet struck the coat just below the edge of the coat collar, penetrated through the coat and liner on an obtuse/oblique angle, and then exited the coat to strike JFK in the back of the head at the lower edge of the hairline.

So a 6.5mm round struck just below the edge of the coat collar and

left a 3mm x 3mm defect with a short slice mark to the right and a

longer slice mark to the left?

And somehow this bullet did not penetrate the shirt!

Yes, your knowledge of ballistics is staggering.

So Mr. "intellectual dishonesty", exactly when was it that you were going to get around to telling us all of this fantastic information relative to the coat.

Been doing it rather single-mindedly for years, thank you.

Even were I "intellectually dishonest", it would still be far better than being completely ignorant of the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts of the assassination.

That you can't tell the difference between a 3mm x 3mm puncture hole

and a bullet hole reveals the degree of your ignorance.

I'll leave it to the gentle reader to make their own conclusion as to your

intellectual honesty.

And, by the way, your "non-bunch" theory has been discredited by virtually every qualified expert who has even taken a look at the subject matter.

It is a readily observed fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

Whenever I cite the photographic evidence for all to see, LNers sputter

contentless denials, as you have done yet again, Tom.

But no actual rebuttals are forthcoming, although Craig Lamson lamely

attempted such a year ago, but he didn't stick around very long.

And of course there was a "bunch" in the coat -- 1/8".

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar, while

the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was elevated 1/8" relative to the shirt.

1/8" does not equal 3" -- only an intellectually dishonest person

would make such a claim, imo.

[b]"Actually! I consider "half-wit" jerks to be those who launch into great conspiracy scenario's without having even come to understand the most simple aspects of the physical facts"[/b]

Please clue us in on who these "qualified experts" are, Tom.

John Hunt?

Chad Zimmerman?

Please, do inform us as to who these experts are and what their

methodologies were in making the determination that JFK's jacket

dropped into a grossly elevated position.

This, gentle reader, should be good!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

He has shown an ability to accept them and change in viewpoint, all pointing at some good principles. Why do people not want to ask him polite questions?

He based his "two bullet holes" in the jacket notion on cherry-picked

witness testimony, then when he was presented with clear photographic

evidence to the contrary he stuck to his guns beyond all reason.

And then he gets arrogant about it!

If not for his prior service to his country, Mr. Purvis would have been

roasted far more than he has been by me.

[John Dolva]

He has shown an ability to accept them and change in viewpoint, all pointing at some good principles. Why do people not want to ask him polite questions?

He based his "two bullet holes" in the jacket notion on cherry-picked

witness testimony, then when he was presented with clear photographic

evidence to the contrary he stuck to his guns beyond all reason.

And then he gets arrogant about it!

If not for his prior service to his country, Mr. Purvis would have been

roasted far more than he has been by me.

I think you've just described a human being, Cliff.

"........ ........... ............... ........................ ........ ........... .............. .................. .................... ......... ............ ................. ............................ ..................... ................... ..................... ............... ................... Take or leave the answer. That's up to you/me. Same with most here. ........................................................(He has shown an ability to accept them and change in viewpoint, all pointing at some good principles. Why do people not want to ask him polite questions?)......... .......... ....... ........ .......... ............ .............. .................. ........... ............ .................. ................. ...................That doesn't mean I like or dislike anyone." That includes you, Cliff. This wasn't an attack on you, or anyone, (but if the hat fits and one chooses to wear it in public...). I find your postings interesting and educational as well, same with Al whom Tom really ripped into. It's unfortunate he no longer participates.

It's hot in this bullpit. Some may thrive on that, for others it's a reason for not participating, some don't give a s..t and just carry on with whatever.

[Len Colby]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

I agree but he is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

The problem is that I'm not that interested in the assassination per se but rather only select aspects, principally allegations the Z-film and other images were altered and have no defined position other than I don't think LHO on his own using that old MC could have done all the shooting in the required time frame. By forum standards I don't know enough outside my limited areas of interest to add anything of value. As I stated earlier I believe Feser's position applies to 9/11 but not the assassination.

As for Evan from what I gather he interest level is about the same as mine (perhaps lower) and he has no set position.