Forwarned!

[John Dolva]

"... "First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong…Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known."... "

editadd sorry something went wrong with the connection...

OSWALD NOT GUILTY! FAMED SNIPER SAYS SHOT IMPOSSIBLE

Edited October 12, 2011 by John Dolva

[Daniel Gallup]

We're asked by Mr. Purvis to not chase "mythical creatures."

Maybe Tom can explain the mythical creature that existed on the Sixth Floor. The creature that made no sounds. The creature that Harold Norman claimed fired a weapon and from which he heard spent shells hitting the floor but heard no footsteps from. Heard no movement of.

Either the witnesses lied or the creature was in no hurry to leave or a combination of both. Either way the case against Oswald is impacted. Was LHO just wearing his socks and put on his shoes on the stairs or did he have the ability to levitate? Or alternatively Harold Norman is a xxxx and his evidence should be discarded. And if Norman did lie then why did he do so and did he do it under his own volition or was he coerced?

There is so much that goes against Purvis' theory (that he believes is the actual solution) that it's hardly worth the effort listing it all. Next he'll be trying to explain away the lack of nitrates on LHO's face. I'm guessing a McAdamsesque excuse; that the MC was so highly engineered it didn't expel any.

When Purvis uses the language frame "mythical creatures" he actually means awkward questions.

I'm still waiting for the TP explanation of Clinton/Jackson. Another mythical creature I guess?

And I'm still awaiting a response to this question:

Actually, the SBT is a demonstrated fact.

Really? Demonstrated by whom?

Tom, I think the well-thought out objections to your conclusions by Mr. Dolva, Hays and Farley require a response in kind, not condescending language aimed at those of us who disgree with you. Spending $30,000 of your own money to give voice to your views does not give you the right to pour scorn on those who investment has been no less serious than yours. Regards, Daniel

Edited October 13, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who are not gainfully occupied in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza and who have an actual interest in factual truths as well as documents which will ultimately be of some historical significance, the following information is provided:

Beginning with the first weekly publishing of the newspaper (for the month of November) "THE GEORGE COUNTY TIMES", the relatively simple facts of the third/last/final shot impact to the head of JFK will be published.

Additionaly, for those few who actually have interest in facts, this, the third/last/final shot IS NOT the Z312/313 impact. (which was the second shot).

The third/last/final shot impacted the head of JFK at approximately survey stationing 4+95, which happens to be almost 30-feet farther down Elm St. from where the Z313 impact occurred.

Continuation of weekly publication throughout the month of November will be done until virtually all aspects of the third shot impact (aka "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"/aka the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET") have been presented.

Tom Purvis

P.S. For those who are already on the "distribution list", you will continue to receive your copy of each weekly publishing.

P.P.S. For Mr. Mack. Although the copies have yet to be made, you/The Sixth Floor Museum, can count on having a full-sized copy of the Warren Commission Survey Plat in hand by the first week of November as well.

Mr. Mack;

Found a copying location! (in Mobile, AL). Now, just have to find time to get down there. Hopefully, prior to November22.

Also! Review of weekly publishings for the month of November has now begun (by The George County Times).

For those who are on the "distribution list", the following (proposed) schedule of printing is:

November 3------------------------Four Page publishing

November10-----------------------Two Page publishing

November17-----------------------Four Page publishing

November 24----------------------Two Page Publishing

*There may also be the need to add an additional 2-page publishing for the November 30/December 1 issue.

All of which will be directed to explanation of the third/last/final shot impact (down in front of James Altgens)

And yes John (McAdams), you too are on my listing to receive a copy of the WC Survey Plat when I manage to get it copied.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. LHO was an absolutely superior marksman at ranges up to 300 yards when firing from a fixed/stable firing position. As was the "bench rest" type position found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, as created by the stacked boxes.

The Warren Commission heard testimony from one former Marine, Nelson Delgado, who stated that Oswald's marksmanship "was a joke," that he could hardly qualify on the range...In 1977 the author located and interviewed more than fifty of Oswald's Marine Corps colleagues...there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion...Sherman Cooley, an expert hunter who grew up in rural Louisiana, knew Oswald well during their Marine Corps service. Cooley's comment capsulizes what several dozen Marines had to say about Oswald's ability as a marksman: "If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw that man shoot, and there's no way he could have learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of"...Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot.

- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs 99-100.

You want an example of someone talking "BS" about the assassination, Tom? Read your own post.

Sorry Martin!

The "joke" lies in those who accept and believe each and every statement (which supports their particular beliefs), that someone claims.

Why not post those statements of the USMC EXPERTS who had access to LHO's Rangefire Record?????

Or better yet, review the actual Rangfire Records (as published within the WC), and get some qualified USMC shooters to comment on it.

OH! I forgot! That has already been done, by no less than one who carried the "SNIPER" designation of the USMC.

If recalled, he too accepted that LHO was in fact a relatively good shooter, as well the relative simplicity of the shots from the sixth floor.

Personally, (considering my own bias), I would believe nothing that I claim.

However, when fully qualified others accept and promote the same hypothesis, one just may want to take a closer look at the facts.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"... "First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong…Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known."... "

editadd sorry something went wrong with the connection...

OSWALD NOT GUILTY! FAMED SNIPER SAYS SHOT IMPOSSIBLE

John! What's new about this?

First off, Craig Roberts is attempting to sell a book.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That is BS! There was absolutely nothing "drastic" in regards to the angle. Factually,it was approximately 12-degrees.

In event that a purportedly skilled sniper could not compensate for this, then he best go back to his true MOS. (cook or truck driver).

And, if one will actually review the evidence, they will find that the firing position (stacked boxes) in the sixth floor window were located in a position of which there is no way that the wall or vertical pipes would have interfered with making the shot.

There exists an excellent (published) photograph of FBI Agent Robert Frazier in the sixth floor window,(taken from Elm St) positioned based on the firing position of the stacked boxes.

Which, by the way, clearly demonstrates the advantages of the sixth floor firing position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nope again!

Although the branches and leaves of the Live Oak tree partially obscurred the Presidential Limo & President from view, there was more than sufficient view (through the canopy) to have easily "tracked" the target until such time as it (JFK) fully cleared (in the scope) all limbs and leaves of this tree.

Apparantly, Mr. Roberts was only "good" at shooting targets who were walking across rice paddies (which has more truth than most will ever likely know), as those with whom I have dealt were capable of engaging targets throughout a multitude of variable environments.

And, since the "Kill Zone" was factually after JFK had emerged from under the tree canopy, which also made for the considerably less steep downward angle of fire, only a complete incompetent would have considered and/or attempted a shot in the area of the tree canopy,(even were there no canopy),due merely to the steepness of this initial angle of fire.

And, since you have apparantly never been to Dealey Plaza, there is several hundred feet of CLEAR KILL ZONE along Elm St. after one came out from under the last of the tree limbs.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known."... "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What BS!

Anyone with even the most basic of marksmanship could easily compensate for any deviation in Elm St.

For anyone who is a purported "sniper", the "radius" distance of the curves of Elm St. is so minimal as to be minute in compesation for tracking of the target.

In fact! The shot would have been relatively simple for anyone who was truly only of "Marksman" shooting ability.

And, as regards the "high-to-low angle formula", these were all shots of less than 100 yards (300 feet).

And, one can rest assured that IQ wise, LHO may not have taken "physics", but he certainly demonstrated that he was considerably smarter than Craig Roberts, as well as also apparantly knowning far more about shooting.*

*Based on the fact that he chose a superior firing position as well as hitting JFK with three out of three shots.

Tom

P.S. In "today's" military environment, Craig Roberts would have been tried for murder long prior to having shot as many rice farmers as he is credited with.

"Hot Dogs"------aka weiners-------aka male vietnamese who were usually walking along the banks of rice paddies minding their own business.

"Hamburgers"-----aka "a piece of meat"-----aka term for females----in this instance, usually female vietnamese who were usually walking along the banks of rice paddies minding their own business.

P.P.S. A prudent person just may want to ask exactly how many "pot shots" were taken with the .50 Caliber (at rice farmers), before the odds actually/and finally gave a "hit".

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We're asked by Mr. Purvis to not chase "mythical creatures."

Maybe Tom can explain the mythical creature that existed on the Sixth Floor. The creature that made no sounds. The creature that Harold Norman claimed fired a weapon and from which he heard spent shells hitting the floor but heard no footsteps from. Heard no movement of.

Either the witnesses lied or the creature was in no hurry to leave or a combination of both. Either way the case against Oswald is impacted. Was LHO just wearing his socks and put on his shoes on the stairs or did he have the ability to levitate? Or alternatively Harold Norman is a xxxx and his evidence should be discarded. And if Norman did lie then why did he do so and did he do it under his own volition or was he coerced?

There is so much that goes against Purvis' theory (that he believes is the actual solution) that it's hardly worth the effort listing it all. Next he'll be trying to explain away the lack of nitrates on LHO's face. I'm guessing a McAdamsesque excuse; that the MC was so highly engineered it didn't expel any.

When Purvis uses the language frame "mythical creatures" he actually means awkward questions.

I'm still waiting for the TP explanation of Clinton/Jackson. Another mythical creature I guess?

And I'm still awaiting a response to this question:

Actually, the SBT is a demonstrated fact.

Really? Demonstrated by whom?

ANSWER: The forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts!

Tom

P.S. So the record is "perfectly clear", CE399 and the SBT (fact) are two seperate entities.

The fact that Specter & Company decided to "combine" them into one scenario, which has caused massive belief in mythological creatures, is neither my problem nor my mission in life to attempt to dispel.

The facts of the assassination are quite simple!------That there exists those who, for whatever reason, can not comprehend "simple" is and will always remain an aspect of human behavior that completely evades my understanding of the species.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We're asked by Mr. Purvis to not chase "mythical creatures."

Maybe Tom can explain the mythical creature that existed on the Sixth Floor. The creature that made no sounds. The creature that Harold Norman claimed fired a weapon and from which he heard spent shells hitting the floor but heard no footsteps from. Heard no movement of.

Either the witnesses lied or the creature was in no hurry to leave or a combination of both. Either way the case against Oswald is impacted. Was LHO just wearing his socks and put on his shoes on the stairs or did he have the ability to levitate? Or alternatively Harold Norman is a xxxx and his evidence should be discarded. And if Norman did lie then why did he do so and did he do it under his own volition or was he coerced?

There is so much that goes against Purvis' theory (that he believes is the actual solution) that it's hardly worth the effort listing it all. Next he'll be trying to explain away the lack of nitrates on LHO's face. I'm guessing a McAdamsesque excuse; that the MC was so highly engineered it didn't expel any.

When Purvis uses the language frame "mythical creatures" he actually means awkward questions.

I'm still waiting for the TP explanation of Clinton/Jackson. Another mythical creature I guess?

And I'm still awaiting a response to this question:

Actually, the SBT is a demonstrated fact.

Really? Demonstrated by whom?

Tom, I think the well-thought out objections to your conclusions by Mr. Dolva, Hays and Farley require a response in kind, not condescending language aimed at those of us who disgree with you. Spending $30,000 of your own money to give voice to your views does not give you the right to pour scorn on those who investment has been no less serious than yours. Regards, Daniel

your views does not give you the right to pour scorn on those who investment has been no less serious than yours. Regards, Daniel

Monetary investment has little to do with intellectual ability for rational thought!

And, for the record, neither does "time-in-grade" in regards to exactly how long one has actually been attempting to unravel this (relatively simple) enigma.

The facts of the JFK assassination are, despite what many may be lead to believe, extremely simple.

Understanding all the Specter & Company (The Warren Commission) did/accomplished in obscurring these simple facts, is the truly difficult task.

Which by the way, I give them a grade of "A+" for having accomplished so well.

[Pat Speer]

1. LHO was an absolutely superior marksman at ranges up to 300 yards when firing from a fixed/stable firing position. As was the "bench rest" type position found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, as created by the stacked boxes.

The Warren Commission heard testimony from one former Marine, Nelson Delgado, who stated that Oswald's marksmanship "was a joke," that he could hardly qualify on the range...In 1977 the author located and interviewed more than fifty of Oswald's Marine Corps colleagues...there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion...Sherman Cooley, an expert hunter who grew up in rural Louisiana, knew Oswald well during their Marine Corps service. Cooley's comment capsulizes what several dozen Marines had to say about Oswald's ability as a marksman: "If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw that man shoot, and there's no way he could have learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of"...Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot.

- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs 99-100.

You want an example of someone talking "BS" about the assassination, Tom? Read your own post.

Sorry Martin!

The "joke" lies in those who accept and believe each and every statement (which supports their particular beliefs), that someone claims.

Why not post those statements of the USMC EXPERTS who had access to LHO's Rangefire Record?????

Or better yet, review the actual Rangfire Records (as published within the WC), and get some qualified USMC shooters to comment on it.

OH! I forgot! That has already been done, by no less than one who carried the "SNIPER" designation of the USMC.

If recalled, he too accepted that LHO was in fact a relatively good shooter, as well the relative simplicity of the shots from the sixth floor.

Personally, (considering my own bias), I would believe nothing that I claim.

However, when fully qualified others accept and promote the same hypothesis, one just may want to take a closer look at the facts.

The USMC "experts" to which you refer were just window dressing designed to hide that another "USMC" expert had called Oswald a "poor" shot.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

On 7-24-64 the Warren Commission engages the Marine Corps in a little self-protection. To counter Lt. Col. Folsom’s description of Oswald’s marksmanship as “poor,” they take the testimony of Major Eugene D. Anderson, an assistant head of the Marksmanship branch of the Marines, and Master Sergeant James Zahm, an NCO of Marksmanship Training. Arlen Specter takes their testimony. After being shown Oswald's test scores, Anderson offers an explanation for Oswald's lowly score in 1959, shortly before he left the Marines: "It may well have been a bad day for firing a rifle, windy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach. and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle he was firing in his A course firing. because he may well have carried this rifle around for some time, and it got banged around in normal usage." Anderson summarizes Oswald's abilities as follows: "I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same kind of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot." Specter then shows Anderson frames from the Zapruder film and asks him if hitting Kennedy from the distances determined at the re-enactment would be within Oswald's capabilities, and Anderson repeatedly says the shots were within Oswald's capabilities. He then asks him if Oswald could fire three shots in a time span between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds, and Anderson once again replies in the affirmative. Specter fails to ask Anderson the more pertinent question if Oswald could be expected to hit the 2 "not particularly difficult" shots within a 4.8-5.6 second time span while firing at a moving target with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Perhaps he already knew the answer. After finishing with Anderson, Specter makes a point of asking Zahm about Oswald’s ability “based on the tests.” This avoids that the most recent test was 4 years before the shooting and that Oswald had failed to keep in practice. Zahm tells Specter what he undoubtedly wants to hear: “I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.” Clearly, this is the new company line.

Commissioner Dulles was especially receptive to this line. A letter from Dulles to Rankin on 7-27-64, available on the Princeton University website, asks "Where have we dealt with the evidence as to Oswald's ability to handle a rifle?" This confirms that Rankin and his men had held off writing anything about Oswald's shooting ability, until after they could get "friendly" witnesses, such as Major Anderson and Master Sergeant Zahm, on the record.

[Daniel Gallup]

More balderdash.

You said that the single bullet theory - which holds that a single bullet struck JFK at T1 heading downwards at 17 degrees, passed through his back/neck to exit his throat and then went on to cause all of Connally's wounds - was a "demonstrated fact". I'm asking you when it was demonstrated that this journey was even physically possible let alone factual.

When and where did this demonstration take place?

Martin, Tom's presentation at Lancer some years back postulated the view that 399 did not cause any wounds to Connally, but remained embedded base first at the top of Kennedy's right lung. A piece of lead, Tom theorizes, shot out the front of kennedy's throat, confusing the Dallas physicians into thinking they were looking at an entrance wound. The problems with this scenario are too many to be counted. Another point: Tom held the view at Lancer that the bullet entered at the 7th cervical vert., not T-1. If Tom has changed his views, it would be good to know.

[Don Jeffries]

I really don't understand why so many knowledgable researchers waste their time with Tom Purvis. How can you discuss this case with someone who believes the Warren Commission was correct in all their major conclusions (Oswald shot JFK alone, with THAT rifle, from the TSBD sixth floor window) but simultaneously maintains they were engaged in a huge cover up? For good measure, throw in the fact he is evidently a film alterationist. His perplexing theories make Ray Carroll's campaign to defame all of us who strongly believe Oswald wasn't the assassin into "Oswald accusers" something perfectly reasonable.

Please, Tom, just one more time- let me ask you to concisely (I know, I know- that's an impossible request) explain the incredible contradictions in your hypothesis. You confidently state your conclusions, which echo the official story across the board, and dismiss your critics in an abrupt manner. Thus, you should have little trouble in illuminating us on the specifics here. Explain WHAT the Warren Commission covered up, since you agree that Oswald alone assassinated JFK? Also, please humor us as the rationale behind your attraction to the film alteration theory. Since there were no "nonexistent conspirators" you are always accusing us of chasing in vain, WHO would have altered the film record? WHY would they have done that?

We all await your concise replies.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. LHO was an absolutely superior marksman at ranges up to 300 yards when firing from a fixed/stable firing position. As was the "bench rest" type position found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, as created by the stacked boxes.

The Warren Commission heard testimony from one former Marine, Nelson Delgado, who stated that Oswald's marksmanship "was a joke," that he could hardly qualify on the range...In 1977 the author located and interviewed more than fifty of Oswald's Marine Corps colleagues...there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion...Sherman Cooley, an expert hunter who grew up in rural Louisiana, knew Oswald well during their Marine Corps service. Cooley's comment capsulizes what several dozen Marines had to say about Oswald's ability as a marksman: "If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw that man shoot, and there's no way he could have learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of"...Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot.

- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs 99-100.

You want an example of someone talking "BS" about the assassination, Tom? Read your own post.

Sorry Martin!

The "joke" lies in those who accept and believe each and every statement (which supports their particular beliefs), that someone claims.

Why not post those statements of the USMC EXPERTS who had access to LHO's Rangefire Record?????

Or better yet, review the actual Rangfire Records (as published within the WC), and get some qualified USMC shooters to comment on it.

OH! I forgot! That has already been done, by no less than one who carried the "SNIPER" designation of the USMC.

If recalled, he too accepted that LHO was in fact a relatively good shooter, as well the relative simplicity of the shots from the sixth floor.

Personally, (considering my own bias), I would believe nothing that I claim.

However, when fully qualified others accept and promote the same hypothesis, one just may want to take a closer look at the facts.

Balderdash.

More than 50 people remembered the same thing, Tom: Oswald couldn't shoot for sh*t. When 50 people independently remember something exactly the same way it's pretty safe bet they're remembering correctly.

So the firing range records say something slightly different. So what? That says to me that someone whose life was made easier by Oswald qualifying on the range gave him a "helping hand." An infinitely more reasonable proposition than 50 people sharing the same false memory don't you think?

Merely another of the nice "speculative" theories.

Since the USMC did not usually begin one's marksmanship training off with "cheating" on scores, the initial rangefire records of LHO demonstrate that he was of extremely high to superior marksmanship ability from day one.

Something which the WC most assuredly did not want you to know, in order that you just may "swallow" the BS of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

Hell! I do not even know of a USMC cook or truck driver that could not have hit three out of three shots at ranges which were less than 100 yards.

Just for the record:

#1------approximately 60- yards

#2------approximataely 88- yards

#3------approximately 98- yards.

Boy Scout shooting ranges/distances!

In event the "late/great" USMC Sniper had difficulty at such (rock chunking) ranges, it would have been most likely due to the fact that they were far closer than anything which he had ever shot at. On the firing range or in the field!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Martin, Tom's presentation at Lancer some years back postulated the view that 399 did not cause any wounds to Connally, but remained embedded base first at the top of Kennedy's right lung. A piece of lead, Tom theorizes, shot out the front of kennedy's throat, confusing the Dallas physicians into thinking they were looking at an entrance wound. The problems with this scenario are too many to be counted. Another point: Tom held the view at Lancer that the bullet entered at the 7th cervical vert., not T-1. If Tom has changed his views, it would be good to know.

So why the hell is he saying that the SBT is "demonstrated fact"?

Perhaps, as Don suggested, Tom should stop posting needlessly vague nonsense and start clarifying his beliefs so we don't waste any more time.

And if he can't do that, I'll just ignore his posts and suggest others do the same.

Personally, it would be my recommendation that anyone who wants to find out some of the simple (factual) truths, believe nothing stated by anyone on the subject matter.

If they will stick with the simple forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, then they will come to recognize exactly how simple these facts are in regard to each of the shots fired.

And, what is truly nice about it is that there exists more than ample witness testimonies to substantiate these simple facts.

Certainly saves on all of that wasted time hunting for the mythological creatures of Dealey Plaza. (and Love Field, if one belives in body snatchers)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Martin, Tom's presentation at Lancer some years back postulated the view that 399 did not cause any wounds to Connally, but remained embedded base first at the top of Kennedy's right lung. A piece of lead, Tom theorizes, shot out the front of kennedy's throat, confusing the Dallas physicians into thinking they were looking at an entrance wound. The problems with this scenario are too many to be counted. Another point: Tom held the view at Lancer that the bullet entered at the 7th cervical vert., not T-1. If Tom has changed his views, it would be good to know.

So why the hell is he saying that the SBT is "demonstrated fact"?

Perhaps, as Don suggested, Tom should stop posting needlessly vague nonsense and start clarifying his beliefs so we don't waste any more time.

And if he can't do that, I'll just ignore his posts and suggest others do the same.

Personally, it would be my recommendation that anyone who wants to find out some of the simple (factual) truths, believe nothing stated by anyone on the subject matter.

If they will stick with the simple forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, then they will come to recognize exactly how simple these facts are in regard to each of the shots fired.

And, what is truly nice about it is that there exists more than ample witness testimonies to substantiate these simple facts.

Certainly saves on all of that wasted time hunting for the mythological creatures of Dealey Plaza. (and Love Field, if one belives in body snatchers)

Hopefully, The Sixth Floor Museum will display for all to see, the full-sized true copy of the Warren Commission Survey Plat.*

As long ago presented within the "ALTERED EVIDENCE" as well as the "VEHICLE SPEED ANALYSIS", the survey plat offers a starting point in destruction of the Warren Commission and their purportedly "factual" analysis of the JFK assassination.

Tom

*P.S. For Mr. Mack! It went out today by UPS (tracking# 1Z8925R50343990546)

According to UPS, you/The Museum, should receive the survey plat in approximately two days.

Let us all know if, and when, the Museum receives this piece of history.

[John Dolva]

At last. Good on you Tom. So much stuff that can be done with that (if one had a copy of the copy).

[Thomas H. Purvis]

At last. Good on you Tom. So much stuff that can be done with that (if one had a copy of the copy).

In addition to the problems of finding "mailing tubes" of sufficient length, the current cost of $75.00 per copy is also a prohibitive determent to too many copies being made and/or mailed out.

Additionally, as long ago indicated, the scale of the WC survey plat (1-inch = 10 feet) is still insufficient to actually determine that much factual information from it.

ONLY, when the survey information of other works, to include the TIME/LIFE Survey; the SS Survey:, and the HSCA/Drommer survey, do essential elements of information come to be recognized.

Originally, there was no intent to provide the Sixth Floor with this "freebee" information.

However, for various reasons, my thinking has changed on that subject, and at some point in time after the first of the year, it is my intent to provide copies of all of the survey plats as well as the critical survey notes.*

*The copy of the WC plat which the Sixth Floor Museum received has numerous of these items already marked onto it.