The Difference

[Thomas H. Purvis]

TRUTH: "a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one."

(belief): "the state of believing"

"mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty

may be absent."

FACT: "the state of things as they are; reality; actuality"

(reality): "a person or thing that is real"

(actuality): "the state of being actual"

(actual): "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real"

[Daniel Gallup]

TRUTH: "a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one."

(belief): "the state of believing"

"mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty

may be absent."

FACT: "the state of things as they are; reality; actuality"

(reality): "a person or thing that is real"

(actuality): "the state of being actual"

(actual): "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real"

Your definition of "truth" indicates that "truth" is subjective, aligned closely with "belief." That's a particular philosophical position, one with which I am scarely comfortable. Would that we could know the facts of this case, so that we might know the truth of the matter. In this understanding, "truth" is the logical conclusion dictated by the facts of the case. But oh, how the facts are in dispute, and thus, truth is hid from our eyes. Best, Daniel

[Thomas H. Purvis]

TRUTH: "a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one."

(belief): "the state of believing"

"mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty

may be absent."

FACT: "the state of things as they are; reality; actuality"

(reality): "a person or thing that is real"

(actuality): "the state of being actual"

(actual): "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real"

Your definition of "truth" indicates that "truth" is subjective, aligned closely with "belief." That's a particular philosophical position, one with which I am scarely comfortable. Would that we could know the facts of this case, so that we might know the truth of the matter. In this understanding, "truth" is the logical conclusion dictated by the facts of the case. But oh, how the facts are in dispute, and thus, truth is hid from our eyes. Best, Daniel

Your definition of "truth"

Fine, except! Not my defination. Try the Random House Dictionary

Examples:

The Earth is flat! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact!

The Earth is the center of the Universe! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact.

"Truth" is what is believed, and tends to change as one (hopefully) gains more knowledge into the realm of physical fact.

[Daniel Gallup]

TRUTH: "a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one."

(belief): "the state of believing"

"mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty

may be absent."

FACT: "the state of things as they are; reality; actuality"

(reality): "a person or thing that is real"

(actuality): "the state of being actual"

(actual): "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real"

Your definition of "truth" indicates that "truth" is subjective, aligned closely with "belief." That's a particular philosophical position, one with which I am scarely comfortable. Would that we could know the facts of this case, so that we might know the truth of the matter. In this understanding, "truth" is the logical conclusion dictated by the facts of the case. But oh, how the facts are in dispute, and thus, truth is hid from our eyes. Best, Daniel

Your definition of "truth"

Fine, except! Not my defination. Try the Random House Dictionary

Examples:

The Earth is flat! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact!

The Earth is the center of the Universe! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact.

"Truth" is what is believed, and tends to change as one (hopefully) gains more knowledge into the realm of physical fact.

Random House Dictionary??!!?? For something as philosophically dense as the concept of truth? Sorry, no can do. But in the end, I see where you are coming from, and I see that basically, we agree.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

TRUTH: "a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one."

(belief): "the state of believing"

"mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty

may be absent."

FACT: "the state of things as they are; reality; actuality"

(reality): "a person or thing that is real"

(actuality): "the state of being actual"

(actual): "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real"

Your definition of "truth" indicates that "truth" is subjective, aligned closely with "belief." That's a particular philosophical position, one with which I am scarely comfortable. Would that we could know the facts of this case, so that we might know the truth of the matter. In this understanding, "truth" is the logical conclusion dictated by the facts of the case. But oh, how the facts are in dispute, and thus, truth is hid from our eyes. Best, Daniel

Your definition of "truth"

Fine, except! Not my defination. Try the Random House Dictionary

Examples:

The Earth is flat! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact!

The Earth is the center of the Universe! Once accepted as "truth", yet never a fact.

"Truth" is what is believed, and tends to change as one (hopefully) gains more knowledge into the realm of physical fact.

Random House Dictionary??!!?? For something as philosophically dense as the concept of truth? Sorry, no can do. But in the end, I see where you are coming from, and I see that basically, we agree.

Well, I was wrong! It was Webster's (big/thick) dictionary.

Anyway, Truth may actually be fact. If so, then it becomes a "factual truth".

Facts cannot change, merely our often erroneous interpretation of these facts, which we too often, in error, accept as truth.

As JBC was known to pronounce: "The truth is what we tell them it is!" (or words to that effect)

But of course, JBC was a known xxxx!

[Guest Tom Scully]

Five posts in....extremely vague thread title, and so far, no JFK Debate relevant or referenced text, opinion, info, etc.

Does the thread stay, or does it go?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.

ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles

Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.

Truth v. Fact!

And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!

Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.

Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!

However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.

Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?

[William Kelly]

I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.

ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles

Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.

Truth v. Fact!

And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!

Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.

Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!

However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.

Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?

I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario, even after Oswald is eliminated as a possible suspect, not having descended the steps to the second floor and having been seen on the first floor at the time.

But I can't shake the witnesses who saw a large, blown out portion of the back of JFK's skull, clear indication of an exit wound.

How do you account for those witnesses?

BK

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.

ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles

Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.

Truth v. Fact!

And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!

Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.

Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!

However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.

Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?

I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario, even after Oswald is eliminated as a possible suspect, not having descended the steps to the second floor and having been seen on the first floor at the time.

But I can't shake the witnesses who saw a large, blown out portion of the back of JFK's skull, clear indication of an exit wound.

How do you account for those witnesses?

BK

"How do you account for those witnesses?"

As with most things--------They too were correct!

Merely that "blown out" could come from a bullet exiting out the back of the head, or for that matter from the shattering of an already severely compromised skull bone, by a subsequent (ie: the third shot impact) bullet impact.

One of which is "truth" and the other of which is a "fact"!

As a "hint", there was no bullet exit (indication of any exterior table of the skull beveling) found on any section of skull from the rearmost portion of the head.

[b]"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence"[/b]

Tom Purvis

[Daniel Gallup]

I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.

ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles

Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.

Truth v. Fact!

And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!

Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.

Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!

However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.

Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?

Tom, what is in dispute are the facts of the case. If the chain of possession of the body was lost (what I consider a fact) then all bets are off. Your conclusions (and mine) are not worth the paper they're printed on. I find it very hard to take your assertions of "fact" with any degree of factuality ( I think I made up that last word). I wish more people would take seriously the problem of the chain of possession of the body. It's not "Lifton's" problem -- it's all of our problem, and it really screws up the case, that is, it makes the truth very very hard to find. Please reconsider your absolute confidence in your conclusions, or patiently explain to me why I need not consider this fly in the ointment. Best, Daniel

[Cliff Varnell]

I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario,

I don't see how given the location of the back wound.

At least 2 shooters fired at JFK. That is a readily proven FACT.

[Craig Lamson]

I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario,

I don't see how given the location of the back wound.

At least 2 shooters fired at JFK. That is a readily proven FACT.

Thats a proven fact? LMAO.

It's a proven fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back JKF's jacket as seen in Betzner.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.

ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles

Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.

Truth v. Fact!

And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!

Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.

Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!

However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.

Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?

Tom, what is in dispute are the facts of the case. If the chain of possession of the body was lost (what I consider a fact) then all bets are off. Your conclusions (and mine) are not worth the paper they're printed on. I find it very hard to take your assertions of "fact" with any degree of factuality ( I think I made up that last word). I wish more people would take seriously the problem of the chain of possession of the body. It's not "Lifton's" problem -- it's all of our problem, and it really screws up the case, that is, it makes the truth very very hard to find. Please reconsider your absolute confidence in your conclusions, or patiently explain to me why I need not consider this fly in the ointment. Best, Daniel

Of one "FACT" I am most assuredly certain.

It is a complete waste of time and effort to attempt to explain forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact to anyone who is even remotely of the opinion that they would consider the "body snatching" scenario.

All of the facts are in fact quite simple as well as relatively easy to understand.

But!

Not for those who are gainfully employed in chasing mythological multiple assassins and/or body snatchers.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario,

I don't see how given the location of the back wound.

At least 2 shooters fired at JFK. That is a readily proven FACT.

Thats a proven fact? LMAO.

It's a proven fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back JKF's jacket as seen in Betzner.

"At least 2 shooters fired at JFK. That is a readily proven FACT."

Why don't we just go for broke and make it 5-shooters, and then add in the "body snatcher" theory as well.

Or better yet, JFK still lives on some remote Island.-----Saw that in one of the Wal-Mart tabloids. (for the record, did not believe it either)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I feel like I'm doing The Times cryptic clue crossword whenever I try to decipher Mr. Purvis' posts.

ACROSS 4. Spanish banjo player gets caught in a tight spot whilst eating pickles

Merely attempting to establish a few parameters for how we approach various aspects of the assassination.

Truth v. Fact!

And, just to throw in the JFK topic: Fact!-----JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired ONLY from the sixth floor of the TSDB, by a Lone Assassin!

Truth: There could have been another half-dozen shooters for all that I know, merely that the wounds incurred by JFK came from only those shots fired from the sixth floor window.

Therefore, were there other "multiple assassins", they all missed everything and everyone.----------FACT!

However! There was most assuredly no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as told by the Warren Commission.

Not to mention exactly what sort of fool would believe such an ass-inine scenario to begin with?

I can live with the lone, Sixth Floor Sniper scenario, even after Oswald is eliminated as a possible suspect, not having descended the steps to the second floor and having been seen on the first floor at the time.

But I can't shake the witnesses who saw a large, blown out portion of the back of JFK's skull, clear indication of an exit wound.

How do you account for those witnesses?

BK

"How do you account for those witnesses?"

Bill;

Whether or not you accept the given answer is of course irrelevant to me.

Should you care for further elaboration as to how the second head shot (EOP entry/shot#3) cause an additional portion of the rear of JFK's skull to complete fragmentation and separate from the rear of his head, it can be easily explained (as well as shown) from the existing evidence.

Since Clint Hill also saw this section of/from the rear of the skull laying in the back seat of the Presidential Limo, there is little if any "speculation" as to it's existence.

Merely how it came to exist is what continues to cause and create confusion.