The Difference

[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

"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.

I don't have a problem with the confusion, as long as you don't try to pin it on Oswald, the Patsy.

BK

Edited August 5, 2011 by William Kelly

[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.

I don't have a problem with the confusion, as long as you don't try to pin it on Oswald, the Patsy.

BK

"I don't have a problem with the confusion, as long as you don't try to pin it on Oswald, the Patsy."

Bill;

Since I was not there, it remains up in the air as to who to attempt to "pin" it on.

And by that I reference strictly the lone/single shooter, not those who created this situation.

Those who were behind the actions of LHO were just as capable of placing him in the "designated patsy" position as they were of having him actually do the shooting.

That is one answer that will most likely forever remain lost.

If, and when, how the assassination actually occured is ever accepted, then perhaps the efforts of true researchers can be directed to the WHO?

Until then, most will continue to chase mythological multiple assassins, body snatchers, etc; etc; etc.

And, are most unlikely to come to any finalized consensus as to how the assassination even occurred.

So!

First off:--------How was "john" shot?

Then:-------------Who shot John?

And lastly:

Exactly who was behind the actions of "Who shot John"?

[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

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.

Mr. Purvis, are you aware your answer to a simple question I raised gives me great cause to think this distinction you raise between truth and fact is much a much more complicated affair than you realize? For all your emphasis on the distinction between the two, I feel when I read your reply that I am encountering an ideologue. Fact or fiction?

[Gil Jesus]

If the chain of possession of the body was lost (what I consider a fact) then all bets are off.... 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.

I think Lifton's research raised the question ( for me at least ) about whether or not the body was hijacked after the assassination. It would certainly make sense for a coverup to remove any bullets which remained in the body and would explain WHY the SS were so hellbent on not allowing the casket to be opened once they started their departure from Parkland. It makes me wonder if the body was even in that casket or if it had already been removed to be whisked out the rear door. I just find that the actions of the SS, to the extent of removing the casket at gunpoint, is somewhat strange.

If it had been ordered by RFK as AG, I'd have no problem with it. Perhaps the "Kennedy clan" was so pissed off that they were determined not to let any Dallasite cut him up. "We brought our guy down here and you blew his brains out, now you wanna carve him up ??? No way."

I could understand that.

But it still makes me wonder.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Daniel Gallup]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

[Thomas H. Purvis]

If the chain of possession of the body was lost (what I consider a fact) then all bets are off.... 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.

I think Lifton's research raised the question ( for me at least ) about whether or not the body was hijacked after the assassination. It would certainly make sense for a coverup to remove any bullets which remained in the body and would explain WHY the SS were so hellbent on not allowing the casket to be opened once they started their departure from Parkland. It makes me wonder if the body was even in that casket or if it had already been removed to be whisked out the rear door. I just find that the actions of the SS, to the extent of removing the casket at gunpoint, is somewhat strange.

If it had been ordered by RFK as AG, I'd have no problem with it. Perhaps the "Kennedy clan" was so pissed off that they were determined not to let any Dallasite cut him up. "We brought our guy down here and you blew his brains out, now you wanna carve him up ??? No way."

I could understand that.

But it still makes me wonder.

"But it still makes me wonder."

Wondering exactly why the human species responds in various ways (to stimuli) has generated many, many specialists in the fields of sociology, psychiatry, etc.

It however does not mean there exists some ulterior motive at the given time of the actions.

The evidence in the JFK assassination is in fact quite plain, clear, and simple, and left to stand on it's own merit will fully explain exactly how the assassination actually occurred.

One can attempt to "throw in" all of the body snatchers and/or multiple assassins they wish. This will not change the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, which ultimately determine the "FACTUAL TRUTH" of the assassination.

There are those who read this forum and who also were once of the opinion of the "great conspiracy" concept and the "great enigma" this is.

Thankfully, those who recognize the factual truths when they see them, are out there.

As few as they may be.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

"This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch"There exists, on this forum, a former conspiracy minded idividual, who could easily explain the aspects of the throat wound if they so desired.

That one decides something is "fact", when in fact it has no factual basis, hardly makes it even being close to the "factual truth".

There are those on this forum who were once "conspiracy oriented" who have now been exposed to the "factual truths", and who could now fully explain virtually all aspects of the anterior throat wound, were they of the mind to do so.

However, it remains for the individual to keep an "open mind" in order to recognize, evaluate, and accept whatever fact is derived from the why? of the anterior throat wound.

As with virtually every other aspect of the assassination, the CORRECT answers to the throat wound are a matter of simple research. And, there is absolutely no necessity to have to invent multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration experts; in order to sufficently cover the aspects of the anterior throat wound.

Same goes for all of the other wounds as well!

[William Kelly]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

"This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch"There exists, on this forum, a former conspiracy minded idividual, who could easily explain the aspects of the throat wound if they so desired.

That one decides something is "fact", when in fact it has no factual basis, hardly makes it even being close to the "factual truth".

There are those on this forum who were once "conspiracy oriented" who have now been exposed to the "factual truths", and who could now fully explain virtually all aspects of the anterior throat wound, were they of the mind to do so.

However, it remains for the individual to keep an "open mind" in order to recognize, evaluate, and accept whatever fact is derived from the why? of the anterior throat wound.

As with virtually every other aspect of the assassination, the CORRECT answers to the throat wound are a matter of simple research. And, there is absolutely no necessity to have to invent multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration experts; in order to sufficently cover the aspects of the anterior throat wound.

Same goes for all of the other wounds as well!

That's all fine and well, as long as you don't attempt to make Lee Harvey Oswald, the designated and confirmed Patsy as your lone sniper.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

"This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch"There exists, on this forum, a former conspiracy minded idividual, who could easily explain the aspects of the throat wound if they so desired.

That one decides something is "fact", when in fact it has no factual basis, hardly makes it even being close to the "factual truth".

There are those on this forum who were once "conspiracy oriented" who have now been exposed to the "factual truths", and who could now fully explain virtually all aspects of the anterior throat wound, were they of the mind to do so.

However, it remains for the individual to keep an "open mind" in order to recognize, evaluate, and accept whatever fact is derived from the why? of the anterior throat wound.

As with virtually every other aspect of the assassination, the CORRECT answers to the throat wound are a matter of simple research. And, there is absolutely no necessity to have to invent multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration experts; in order to sufficently cover the aspects of the anterior throat wound.

Same goes for all of the other wounds as well!

That's all fine and well, as long as you don't attempt to make Lee Harvey Oswald, the designated and confirmed Patsy as your lone sniper.

So far, he is the only one that fits the bill of:

A. The actual lone shooter!

B. The actual designated rabbit! (witting or unwitting)

Neither of which eliminates the potential for conspiracy in the actual event.

If, and when, the highly simple facts of the assassination are ever accepted, and the majority of those who have interest in the subject matter are no longer chasing mythological multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration specialists, then one just may be able to sufficiently concentrate on the LHO subject and determine exactly what role he actually played in this event.

[Daniel Gallup]

Tom,again your response to my assertion of tampering of the throat wound is a non-response. You are a very difficult guy to engage. I would like concrete arguments from you, but all I read are pontifications, as if you are in command of some secret knowledge like the Gnostics of old. Please answer one question for me, giving me FACTS: why would Perry, backed up by McClleland, I think, quote a 2-3 cm size for the trach incision, if in fact it was 7-8 cm at Bethesda? Thanks in advance, Daniel.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,again your response to my assertion of tampering of the throat wound is a non-response. You are a very difficult guy to engage. I would like concrete arguments from you, but all I read are pontifications, as if you are in command of some secret knowledge like the Gnostics of old. Please answer one question for me, giving me FACTS: why would Perry, backed up by McClleland, I think, quote a 2-3 cm size for the trach incision, if in fact it was 7-8 cm at Bethesda? Thanks in advance, Daniel.

Actually!

What Dr. Perry informed Dr. Humes of was that the anterior throat wound was initially approximately 3mm to 5mm in size. (which was relatively correct)

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

Thereafter, he (Dr. Perry) made an approximately 2-3 cm standard tracheostomy incision. Which is also relatively correct.

The ultimate incision being closer to the approximate 7 to 8 cm size. Which is also correct.

In order to even come close to achieving the "correct answer", one must usually know as well as ask the "correct question".

For the most part, the subject of the anterior throat wound was long ago discussed here on this forum.

Having repeated myself numerous times, with little in the way of progress towards ending the BS, I have far better pursuits than to continue to attempt to explain the simple facts of the assassination to those who are most unlikely to accept and/or believe it anyway.

In event that there are those who, for failure to understand the factual evidence, wish to believe in "body snatchers" as well as "wound alteration specialists", then it is most unlikely that anything which I have to say is likely to point such believers towards the simple facts as to the anterior throat wouond.

Or, for that matter, virtually any other aspect of the pathological evidence which they have not taken time and effort to research for themselves.

"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".

Tom Purvis

Big difference between not understanding the evidence as opposed to the necessity for inventing body snatchers/wound alteration specialists in order to merely attempt to explain what one does not understand.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

March 25, 2010---(The George County Times)

At a personal cost of $1,200.00 ($600.00 per page), I published in The George County TImes, the "correct" answer(s) to your misguided concept that the anterior throat wound of JFK was a part of some giant conspiracy which involved body snatching and wound alteration.

Personal costs to date in publishing the "FACTUAL" information is approaching $30,000.00 (if not already achieved) and I have yet to complete presentation of the second shot/aka the Z313 impact. This is scheduled to be completed by the end of October.

Beginning November 2011, that information relative to the third/last/final shot impact will be published throughout the month of November.

For those who are already on the "distribution list" of the newspaper, your subscriptions will continue until completion of all publishings.

For those who are not, you just may have already missed out on some relatively interesting (and simple) facts.

In that regards, I will allow those who have received these facts to be the ultimate judge (on this forum).

Personally, were it me and I had a true interest in the factual aspects of the assassination of JFK, then I would most likely make some attempt to find out what is being published.

And, since publishing began in November 2009 with the explanation of CE399 and the wounds which it is responsible for, then a little "back" research just may answer many of the questions.

Tom Purvis

[Daniel Gallup]

Tom,again your response to my assertion of tampering of the throat wound is a non-response. You are a very difficult guy to engage. I would like concrete arguments from you, but all I read are pontifications, as if you are in command of some secret knowledge like the Gnostics of old. Please answer one question for me, giving me FACTS: why would Perry, backed up by McClleland, I think, quote a 2-3 cm size for the trach incision, if in fact it was 7-8 cm at Bethesda? Thanks in advance, Daniel.

Actually!

What Dr. Perry informed Dr. Humes of was that the anterior throat wound was initially approximately 3mm to 5mm in size. (which was relatively correct)

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

Thereafter, he (Dr. Perry) made an approximately 2-3 cm standard tracheostomy incision. Which is also relatively correct.

The ultimate incision being closer to the approximate 7 to 8 cm size. Which is also correct.

In order to even come close to achieving the "correct answer", one must usually know as well as ask the "correct question".

For the most part, the subject of the anterior throat wound was long ago discussed here on this forum.

Having repeated myself numerous times, with little in the way of progress towards ending the BS, I have far better pursuits than to continue to attempt to explain the simple facts of the assassination to those who are most unlikely to accept and/or believe it anyway.

In event that there are those who, for failure to understand the factual evidence, wish to believe in "body snatchers" as well as "wound alteration specialists", then it is most unlikely that anything which I have to say is likely to point such believers towards the simple facts as to the anterior throat wouond.

Or, for that matter, virtually any other aspect of the pathological evidence which they have not taken time and effort to research for themselves.

"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".

Tom Purvis

Big difference between not understanding the evidence as opposed to the necessity for inventing body snatchers/wound alteration specialists in order to merely attempt to explain what one does not understand.

Once again, Tom, you argue without arguements, without facts. There are others out there who have studied the medical evidence for years, and are of quite a different persuasion than yourself. Your attitude toward them is one of condescenion. But then your style is to pontificate without explnation, which, as I said before, makes it impossible to dialogue with you, due to the absence of argumentation in your assertions.

For instance, Perry makes a 2-3 cm incision, and then to quote you: "The ultimate incision being closer to the approximate 7 to 8 cm size. Which is also correct." What a slippery sentence. For example, WHEN was the ultimate incision made? Who made it? Why? for what purpose? Did the 2-3 cm incision just grow by itself? How? By what processes? Why would Humes describe it as having irregular edges? I asked all these questions back in 1981 when I began to study the medical evidence. I am still waiting to read an answer that makes more sense than wound tampering. As I said in the previous post, if you have an answer, lay it out, giving clear reasons for your assertions. As a math instructor, I am used to reading proofs and judging them for their validity.

I think this is a fair request, don't you? Thanks in advance, Daniel

[Daniel Gallup]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

March 25, 2010---(The George County Times)

At a personal cost of $1,200.00 ($600.00 per page), I published in The George County TImes, the "correct" answer(s) to your misguided concept that the anterior throat wound of JFK was a part of some giant conspiracy which involved body snatching and wound alteration.

Personal costs to date in publishing the "FACTUAL" information is approaching $30,000.00 (if not already achieved) and I have yet to complete presentation of the second shot/aka the Z313 impact. This is scheduled to be completed by the end of October.

Beginning November 2011, that information relative to the third/last/final shot impact will be published throughout the month of November.

For those who are already on the "distribution list" of the newspaper, your subscriptions will continue until completion of all publishings.

For those who are not, you just may have already missed out on some relatively interesting (and simple) facts.

In that regards, I will allow those who have received these facts to be the ultimate judge (on this forum).

Personally, were it me and I had a true interest in the factual aspects of the assassination of JFK, then I would most likely make some attempt to find out what is being published.

And, since publishing began in November 2009 with the explanation of CE399 and the wounds which it is responsible for, then a little "back" research just may answer many of the questions.

Tom Purvis

Tom, I remember your assertions on the Lancer forum some years back about CE 399 hitting the tree and tumbling into Kennedy's neck, and a piece of that bullet shooting out the front of Kennedy's neck, mimicking the look of a bullet entrance wound (which you admit was what those who saw it thought it was). I printed out part of a 9 page article of yours detailing your assertions. On pp 1-2, you state your position as mentioned above. On page 3 and 4 you picture the path of CE 399 at the 7th cervical and lodging in the apex of his right lung. In another article you purport to show how a tumbling bullet entering at 18 degree from the horizontal would create a new route down to the lung apex of 45 to 60 degrees. The bullet's track into Kennedy's neck is then sort of a dogleg, from 18 to 45-60 degrees, as represented clearly on page 4 of the nine page article.

You have above invited the readers of this forum to judge for themselves the value of your work, and I think they should do exactly that. Does your view, described above, of CE 399 on Lancer in June, 2002, cohere with your present-day view, or have you altered it in any way? I say this because your presentation back then prompted quite a lot of feedback, the very thing you desire now, and not all of that feedback was, well, entirely positive.

Thanks in advance for clarifying anything that needs clarifying. Best, Daniel

Edited August 18, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[Daniel Gallup]

Gil, if there were no discrepancies between the description of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda, I might find some plausibility in your argument. I find the description of the trach incision by Perry to Lifton as utterly decisive of throat tampering with the intent to remove a bullet that Perry told Clark had "ranged downward and did not exit". I have read attempted refutations of the tampering charge, the latest by Milicent Craynor, and remain all the more persuaded that the throat incision as reported by Humes represents pre-autopsy cutting, and this is the reason the Secret Service wanted the body so badly. The different size of the throat incision is one of the smoking guns in the case. This fact alone indicates the plan to kill the President and create a false solution to the crime were planned out in advance by the same sordid bunch. Best, Daniel

March 25, 2010---(The George County Times)

At a personal cost of $1,200.00 ($600.00 per page), I published in The George County TImes, the "correct" answer(s) to your misguided concept that the anterior throat wound of JFK was a part of some giant conspiracy which involved body snatching and wound alteration.

Personal costs to date in publishing the "FACTUAL" information is approaching $30,000.00 (if not already achieved) and I have yet to complete presentation of the second shot/aka the Z313 impact. This is scheduled to be completed by the end of October.

Beginning November 2011, that information relative to the third/last/final shot impact will be published throughout the month of November.

For those who are already on the "distribution list" of the newspaper, your subscriptions will continue until completion of all publishings.

For those who are not, you just may have already missed out on some relatively interesting (and simple) facts.

In that regards, I will allow those who have received these facts to be the ultimate judge (on this forum).

Personally, were it me and I had a true interest in the factual aspects of the assassination of JFK, then I would most likely make some attempt to find out what is being published.

And, since publishing began in November 2009 with the explanation of CE399 and the wounds which it is responsible for, then a little "back" research just may answer many of the questions.

Tom Purvis

Tom, I remember your assertions on the Lancer forum some years back about CE 399 hitting the tree and tumbling into Kennedy's neck, and a piece of that bullet shooting out the front of Kennedy's neck, mimicking the look of a bullet entrance wound (which you admit was what those who saw it thought it was). I printed out part of a 9 page article of yours detailing your assertions. On pp 1-2, you state your position as mentioned above. On page 3 and 4 you picture the path of CE 399 at the 7th cervical and lodging in the apex of his right lung. In another article you purport to show how a tumbling bullet entering at 18 degree from the horizontal would create a new route down to the lung apex of 45 to 60 degrees. The bullet's track into Kennedy's neck is then sort of a dogleg, from 18 to 45-60 degrees, as represented clearly on page 4 of the nine page article.

You have above invited the readers of this forum to judge for themselves the value of your work, and I think they should do exactly that. Does your view, described above, of CE 399 on Lancer in June, 2002, cohere with your present-day view, or have you altered it in any way? I say this because your presentation back then prompted quite a lot of feedback, the very thing you desire now, and not all of that feedback was, well, entirely positive.

Thanks in advance for clarifying anything that needs clarifying. Best, Daniel

Tom, I have gone back into the Lancer archives to read some exchanges we and others had in 2002. I was struck by your contention that the base of CE 399 broke off as it hit Kennedy from behind around C7 and exited in a downward direction out of Kennedy 's throat. So if we were looking at the anterior wound at Parkland, had the Dallas doctors been able to determine any direction for this bullet fragment, they would have said that from the point of view of one looking at Kennedy from the front, the bullet track was upwards (from your point of view, the path of the lead piece from the base of 399). I don't know why I didn't bring up Kemp Clark's description of the anterior throat wound to the New York Times that weekend. He said the bullet hitting Kennedy in the throat entered from the front and ranged downward, and did not exit. This from a doctor who saw the wound, greatly contradicts your original and creative explanation for the throat wound. And now a question, Tom: is the condescenion with which you greet people like me who have concluded the chain of possession of the body was lost -- is this warranted? What would Dr. Clark say? Resepctfully, (and I do mean respectfully), Daniel

Edited August 20, 2011 by Daniel Gallup