The CIA Did Not Do It!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis...you are extremely ill-informed on Oswald.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would appear that I just may be considerably more informed than those who expouse the "Giant Conspiracy" by the US Government/Secret Service/CIA/FBI/etc; etc; etc.

To include "forged" autopsy photographs and X-rays!

Perhaps a comparison of our background and training in covert operations may provide some scale by which readers could judge.

I'll discuss my CIA/SS/& FBI training after you have posted yours.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Purvis...if your "security clearance" permits, please share with

us your "classified information" on Oswald.

You present many intriguing "tidbits" on LHO to prop up your

bonafides. In my 40+ years of researching, I have encountered

many "ex-CIA" disinformation agents and provocateurs, beginning

back in the '60s. Your modus operandi parallels theirs.

1. Gain credibility by DANGLING bits of information which may or

may not be true.

2. Claim their inside information gave them access to "facts about LHO".

3. Claim they NO LONGER ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE AGENCY.

4. After establishing their "bonafides" (an agency term), they then

present a "red herring scenario" created by Langley.

Come on, Mr. Purvis...do something original. Your modus operandi

has been used by several dozen before you.

If you have some "real" information, please share it with us.

But do not try to "posner" us by claiming LHO acted alone. Case Closed.

Jack

(experienced with dealing with

"former CIA" people who claim to

be researchers)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shared Information!

Although you certainly were not the topic of discussion, many years ago when I was in contact with Dr. Boswell as regards the autopsy of JFK, we certainly got a few good laughs in regards to those who expouse the "forged" autopsy X-rays and photographs,

It is assumed that in your research on this subject that you discussed and enlightened Dr. Boswell how little he actually knew in regards to these items being authentic.

And, although you certainly were not the topic of discussion, many years ago when I had the distinct pleasure of association with Naval Captan (0-6)/Apollo XIII

Commander James Lovell, from my discussions with him, it certainly appeared that he sincerely believed that he had orbited the moon in Apollo XIII, as well as a previous flight.

It is assumed that in your "Apollo Fraud" theories that you have taken the time to discuss this subject with Captain Lovell and explained to him how wrong he is in regards to the Apollo Program.

From what little I know of your research, which apparently includes "Badgeman", it would appear that you may not recognize a "red herring" from "real research".

The information is provided! Those who desire to do so can check it out for themselves.

It is hardly likely that I or the CIA have the capability to influence the entire enternet and the massive amount of factual history and documents now available to the general public.

Tom

P.S. The great majority of "CIA Agents" are nothing more than persons who evaluate intelligence information. (Intelligenc analyst)

One could be the greatest CIA Agent/asset known as regards to middle east oil supply and flows.

Does not mean that he knows S**T about anything else.

Tom

P.S. If such a poor source of factual information, then perhaps your co-hart in garbage, Dr. Fetzer, will not publish, without my consent, any more of my research.

Rest assured, I let Dr. Fetzer know that I did not appreciate my factual research having appeared in his "Junk Science" book dealing with the assassination of JFK.

True and factual research assumes an "odor" of unacceptibility when associated with such.

In the event you have questions regarding this, talk with Chuck Marlar and perhaps he can explain it to you.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Who does this guy think he is? I don't know Tom Purvis, but if this is an example of the quality of his research, then no one should take him seriously. I am dismayed that he would use this forum for smearing good people and good work that has gone far to expose the cover-up in the assassination of JFK. Here's what I'm talking about:

"P.S. If such a poor source of factual information, then perhaps your co-hart in garbage, Dr. Fetzer, will not publish, without my consent, any more of my research.

"Rest assured, I let Dr. Fetzer know that I did not appreciate my factual research having appeared in his "Junk Science" book dealing with the assassination of JFK.

True and factual research assumes an "odor" of unacceptibility when associated with such.

"In the event you have questions regarding this, talk with Chuck Marlar and perhaps he can explain it to you."

(1) There is ample reason to believe that, quite literally, Purvis does not know what he is talking about. I do not believe he has ever read either the book or the chapter. Here are a dozen reasons for thinking so based upon the remarks I have just quoted, which anyone can easily verify for himself by consulting the book under discussion:

(i) The book to which he refers, presumably, is ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

(ii) His name appears in the index exactly once for a reference to him on page 254.

(iii) The reference to Purvis is unqualifiedly complimentary and reads as follows:

"Based upon the meticulous work and analysis of assassination researcher Tom Purvis, who has been corresponding with Robert West since 1991, the level of government deceit can now be understood. This is not the first time Mr. West and surveyor, Chester Breneman, have raised questions about the validity of the survey. Both have been quoted as being astounded that the published figures did not match theirs or the figures taken in the 1964 re-enactment. Mr. Purvis, however, has obtained copies of Mr. West's field survey notes and using his Army training in survey combined with close scrutiny of the re-enactment exhibits, has brought new insights to this issue."

(iv) The chapter continues with demonstrations of inconsistencies in elaboration.

(v) Neither Jack White nor James H. Fetzer is the author of this chapter.

(vi) The author of this chapter, who cites Mr. Purvis, is Chuck Marler.

(vii) Purvis does not even appear to know how to spell Marler's name.

(viii) Why this should make us "co-harts (sic) in garbage" is beyond me.

(ix) I seem to recall one sentence in this chapter needed to be revised.

(x) If this is what has inflamed Purvis, then he ought to explain himself.

(xi) These are technical books and minor mistakes are not uncommon.

(xii) Whenever I have learned of their existence, I have corrected them.

(xiii) I am quite certain that I corrected that sentence in its 2nd printing.

(xiv) If Purvis does not understand this, he ought to speak with Marler.

(xv) The book, which is in its 7th printing, should be easily obtainable.

(2) Gratuitous smears of good men like Jack White on the basis of false information or gross misunderstanding are reprehensible. Leaving me to one side, he certainly owes Jack White specifically and the members of the forum generally an apology for making such slanderous and irresponsible allegations, which are easily proven false.

(3) ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) broke the back of the cover-up in the death of JFK by (i) exposing the alteration of the autopsy X-rays, by (ii) establishing that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs from the National Archives cannot be of the brain of JFK, and by (iii) offering studies tending to prove the fabrication of the Zapruder film.

(4) The contributors to this book include David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., Robert B Livingston, M.D., Charles Crenshaw, M.D., Bradley Kizzia, J.D., Jack White, Roy Schaeffer and Mike Pincher, J.D., Ron Hepler, Chuck Marler, and Ronald F. White, Ph.D. The work exemplifies an extremely high standard of scholarly research.

(5) Although he touts his vast background with covert operations, I have not yet heard that Purvis is knowledgeable in the interpretation of X-rays or the domain of neurology. It is extremely peculiar that he pretends to be qualified to comment on research by a world authority on the human brain or an expert in radiation oncology.

(6) My inference, based upon this evidence, is that Purvis is not someone whose word can be taken for granted. His remarks suggest to me that he has never even read the book, which appears to be a common practice among irresponsible critics. He owes everyone he has smeared a prompt and public apology on this very form.

There is garbage and there is garbage. Purvis is purveying garbage of his own special kind. It exudes a distinctive stench.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Curious as to whether Purvis had contacted me about this before, I found

two exchanges between us. Here is the first of these two communcations.

As I explained to him, there is no copyright violation involved in any of this.

purvis: Re: Altered Evidence/JFK Assassination (2 of 9)

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:27:05 -0500 (CDT)

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: TEmptyPockets@aol.com

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Altered Evidence/JFK Assassination

Headers: Show All Headers

Mr. Purvis,

While I own the copyright to the book, Chuck Marler holds the copyright

to the article to which you make reference. I am presently unaware of

any claim you may have to anything published therein; in particular, I

would observe that ideas cannot be copyrighted and therefore I wonder if

there is any basis for your claim. In any case, an unsubstantiated as-

sertion such as yours with no specific pages or paragraphs or sentences

referenced would be an obscure basis for alleging much less acknowledg-

ing any such claim. If you would like to contack Chuck Marler and let

him know what it is you have in mind, I would be glad to hear from him.

Your tone of indignation without having even consulted the book in which

this alleged infringment has taken place, however, leads me to question

your motivation. If you would like to substantiate your claim, present

it to Chuck Marler, and ask him to contact me to discuss the matter, I

would of course be glad to hear from him. But an unsubstantiate demand

concerning unspecified "information" is a dubious basis for advancing a

claim of this kind. Since information as such cannot be copyrighted, I

wonder if there is any basis for your claim at all. When and where and

in what form did you "copyright" this information? For all I know, you

may have provided Chuck with information, but that is a far cry from hav-

ing a basis for an assertion of copyright. Moreover, consulting pp. 254-

255 of Chuck's chapter in ASSASSIATION SCIENCE (1998), I observe that he

acknowledges your work as the source of information on those pages. He

has therefore already acknowledged you as a source. I think that, before

you start making wild accusations and imposing demands, you really ought

to take the time to ascertain whether your concerns have any basis in fact.

James H. Fetzer

Editor

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

Quoting TEmptyPockets@aol.com:

>

> Re: I have recently been informed that you apparantly published

> copyrighted

> material in your book "Assassination Science".

>

> In/around 1994/1995, I provided to Chuck Marlar certain

> information

> (under

> copyright) as relates to altered evidence in the Warren

> Commission

> Investigation of the assassination of JFK.

>

> Although I have not personally read the article in the book which

> you

> had

> published, from information provided to me, it would appear

> that

> both you

> and Chuck have infringed upon and/or violated the copyright to

> this

> material.

>

> Please contact Chuck, verify what I have stated, and then publish

> a

> full

> apology with appropriate credit for who discovered this

> information.

>

> I note with some satisfaction that apparantly Chuck could not

> explain

> what

> purpose this altered evidence and hoax re-enactment of the

> assassination

> served. That is correct! Although Chuck received the altered

> evidence

> from

> me, I did not explain what purpose it served.

>

> Please forward immediately your alpology and correction as to who

> is to

> be credited with this evidence to JFK LANCER PRODUCTIONS.

>

> I expect this to be accomplished immediately!

>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>Thomas H. Purvis

>

Edited July 23, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is the second of our exchanges. What I find most revealing is that

this man based his complaint to me upon information found on McAdams'

website! As I am certain we all agree, ALWAYS CONSIDER THE SOURCE!

Perhaps I should add the obvious: Purvis was not contacting me because

he was upset that his work was being discussed by an author of a chapter

in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. On the contrary, he wanted to make sure

that he was being properly credited as the source of research cited there.

purvis: Re: Altered Evidence/JFK Assassination (4 of 9)

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:12:46 -0500 (CDT)

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: TEmptyPockets@aol.com

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Altered Evidence/JFK Assassination

Headers: Show All Headers

Mr. Purvis,

You may not know, but John McAdams' website is not widely regarded as a

source of accurate information. Perhaps you did not read my response

to your earlier post carefully, but since Chuck Marler ACKNOWLEDGED you

as the source of some of the information he incorporated into his piece,

there is NO REASON to acknowledge it again! And while it is possible

to copyright specific forms of expression, such as writings, on a word-

for-word basis, it is not possible to copyright ideas or information.

So even if he used information you had provided to him, that does not

make him obligated to acknowledge you as the source; however, to make

your request all the more pointless, HE HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED YOU!

So I suggest you find better things to do with your copious free time.

James H. Fetzer

Editor

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

Quoting TEmptyPockets@aol.com:

>

> It may be of benefit that you read the post to John McAdams website

> in

> regards

> to the information which you published. Whereas I have now been

> provided

> with

> the article, it can be stated as absolute fact that this is the

> information

> which

> was provided to Chuck Marlar.

>

> It is recognized that you would have no way of verifying where this

> information

> came from other than to take the word of Chuck, and since it had never

> been

> made public before, it would appear that he may have discovered it.

>

> He did not!

>

> I would therefore state again, publishing of this data represents an

>

> infrigement

> on the copyright.

>

> Thomas H. Purvis

>

Edited July 23, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Having, long before you came onto the scene, expended ample funds on junk books related to the assassination of JFK, I saw little to be gained from "your" presentation.

Especially after having read it's reviews.

Nevertheless, my oldest son purchased it for me merely because of my work which was published under the name of Chuck Marler.

The book is now located adjacent to David Lifton's "BEST EVIDENCE".

The two compliment one another in absurdity.

Obviously, you needed some factual evidence in your presentation to help buttress the other unsupported claims.

Tom

P.S. Exactly where are all of those broken backs? About all that I am aware of is the sore ribs which I personally incurred from laughing.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This response from Purvis is as pathetic as I had anticipated. He admits that he has never read the book, just as he admitted when he wrote to me complaining about being cited by Marler that he had not read the chapter! He does not offer even a single argument about any of our studies. But then, how could he? He has not read our books! Someone who pulls stunts like these does not deserve to be taken seriously. There are contributions from eleven experts on different aspects of the case in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), from nine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and from six in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the discoveries published in these books does not have the slightest idea of the current state of scientific research on the death of JFK. If Purvis, with his vast background in covert ops, does not even understand the propaganda games played with amazon.com, he is even less qualified to address these issues than I have supposed. I thought he might be man enough to admit he was wrong. I was mistaken. Read the books and judge for yourself. In my opinion, this man--with all of his pretensions--is a complete waste of time. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Having, long before you came onto the scene, expended ample funds on junk books related to the assassination of JFK, I saw little to be gained from "your" presentation.

Especially after having read it's reviews.

Nevertheless, my oldest son purchased it for me merely because of my work which was published under the name of Chuck Marler.

The book is now located adjacent to David Lifton's "BEST EVIDENCE".

The two compliment one another in absurdity.

Obviously, you needed some factual evidence in your presentation to help buttress the other unsupported claims.

Tom

P.S.  Exactly where are all of those broken backs?  About all that I am aware of is the sore ribs which I personally incurred from laughing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 24, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Charles Black]

Mr. Purvis...you are extremely ill-informed on Oswald.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack

Thank you so very much!

I was beginning to think that I had lost it while reading page after page of these ramblings on Southern History a lot of which, I, as a Southerner, have found much fault with and have consequently taken offense.

I have not been able to figure out if I have been reading the Purvis Gemstone Files or the Purvis slanted, opinionated rendition of ante bellum Louisana.

I must give it to him however, that this certainly should take the prize as the most original, round about and off the wall attempt to prove to we the uninformed, that Lee Harvey Oswald alone assassinated Pres. Kennedy in an attempt to resurrect the South.

I sincerely believe that his are obsessive compulsive ramblings that would give those unfortunate un-informed newer students of the assassination, a skewered and very off centered view of assasination research, Lee Harvey Oswald himself and much of what Purvis refers to as pertinent history. I feel that his "reasoning" is very unsound.

I am aware that many may find that my statements are offensive to Tom, but I could not live with myself if I were to allow what he says to pass for fact. I truly believe that Tom has become a legend in his own mind.

He has thru a geneological study of his own, replete with his personal opinions, somehow asserted that he has solved what may have been the crime of the millenium. His expertise is apparently based on his Army service in special forces.

I also held a top secret military clearance during this time period and was very actively involved, but I assure you that the top secret clearance allowed me NO information other than what was deemed my "need to know"....and that was not a great deal!

My apologies to those whom I have offended and I will not in the future post further regarding Tom Purvis because I feel that doing so would only attract more attention to his "cause".

Charlie Black

Edited July 24, 2005 by Charles Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis...you are extremely ill-informed on Oswald.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack

Thank you so very much!

I was beginning to think that I had lost it while reading page after page of these ramblings on Southern History a lot of which, I, as a Southerner, have found much fault with and have consequently taken offense.

I have not been able to figure out if I have been reading the Purvis Gemstone Files or the Purvis slanted, opinionated rendition of ante bellum Louisana.

I must give it to him however, that this certainly should take the prize as the most original, round about and off the wall attempt to prove to we the uninformed, that Lee Harvey Oswald alone assassinated Pres. Kennedy in an attempt to resurrect the South.

I sincerely believe that his are obsessive compulsive ramblings that would give those unfortunate un-informed newer students of the assassination, a skewered and very off centered view of assasination research, Lee Harvey Oswald himself and much of what Purvis refers to as pertinent history. I feel that his "reasoning" is very unsound.

I am aware that many may find that my statements are offensive to Tom, but I could not live with myself if I were to allow what he says to pass for fact. I truly believe that Tom has become a legend in his own mind.

He has thru a geneological study of his own, replete with his personal opinions, somehow asserted that he has solved what may have been the crime of the millenium. His expertise is apparently based on his Army service in special forces.

I also held a top secret military clearance during this time period and was very actively involved, but I assure you that the top secret clearance allowed me NO information other than what was deemed my "need to know"....and that was not a great deal!

My apologies to those whom I have offended and I will not in the future post further regarding Tom Purvis because I feel that doing so would only attract more attention to his "cause".

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then perhaps you may take the time to read what others have to say as regards Mr. White.

Clavius: Bibliography--Jack White

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html

Thankfully there are those who renew my faith that we are in fact the intelligent species on this planet.

[Jack White]

For the uninformed, Clavius is a website sponsored by NASA.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

For the uninformed, Clavius is a website sponsored by NASA.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ROFLMAO!

[John Dolva]

This response from Purvis is as pathetic as I had anticipated.  He admits that he has never read the book, just as he admitted when he wrote to me complaining about being cited by Marler that he had not read the chapter!  He does not offer even a single argument about any of our studies.  But then, how could he?  He has not read our books!  Someone who pulls stunts like these does not deserve to be taken seriously.  There are contributions from eleven experts on different aspects of the case in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), from nine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and from six in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).  I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the discoveries published in these books does not have the slightest idea of the current state of scientific research on the death of JFK.  If Purvis, with his vast background in covert ops, does not even understand the propaganda games played with amazon.com, he is even less qualified to address these issues than I have supposed.  I thought he might be man enough to admit he was wrong.  I was mistaken.  Read the books and judge for yourself.  In my opinion, this man--with all of his pretensions--is a complete waste of time.  He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Having, long before you came onto the scene, expended ample funds on junk books related to the assassination of JFK, I saw little to be gained from "your" presentation.

Especially after having read it's reviews.

Nevertheless, my oldest son purchased it for me merely because of my work which was published under the name of Chuck Marler.

The book is now located adjacent to David Lifton's "BEST EVIDENCE".

The two compliment one another in absurdity.

Obviously, you needed some factual evidence in your presentation to help buttress the other unsupported claims.

Tom

P.S.  Exactly where are all of those broken backs?  About all that I am aware of is the sore ribs which I personally incurred from laughing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This sort of bickering does nothing to encourage research. As far as I understand this forum is not intended as a market for the sale or promotion of publications. There is obviouosly a lot of such stuff going on outside this forum that I'm blissfully unaware of. So largely I try to take people as they come with no regard for the number or order of alphabeticals before or after their monikers. I find the information that Tom is providing helpful. It would also be good , I think, if those who comment on any topics on this forum do so in a spirit of furthering research. I find using it as opportunities to establish a kind of intellectual, academic snobbery replete with blatant sales pitches quite off putting. I think the people interested in the various subjects on this forum are capable of greater discernment than some appear to think. I don't agree with some of Tom's conclusions, that may be because what I am basing my own theory doesn't support it, or I am reading my basis wrongly, or I'm ignoring some aspects that slant's my attitudes, or whatever. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else is wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are right in some things and wrong in others. I can only find this out by free and open exchange of information.

I believe that genealogy research is a time consuming and difficult thing and that Tom takes the time to do so publicly in this forum is a good thing. Amongst what may turn out to be irrelevancies I think there are many research angles. I've certainly alredy gained background perspectives that flesh out the perception of time, place and people relevant to this investigation. Tom graciously implore people to make up their own mind. Others imagine that stating the certainty of their position without providing any thing except a sales pitch necessarily makes that position correct.

Those who wish to peruse or pursue Tom's or anyone elses information will do so, those who don't, hopefully JUST don't. To generate an anti-research atmosphere is instructive insofar as it reveals the motives of those who do so. Perhaps a separate topic could be started so that those who desire to do that can post to it. Otherwise this sort of thing just clogs things up. JohnD

ps. re the clavius site. Well, that is a surprise to me. If correct it would seem to explain some of the difficulties in having productive discourse on photo forensic issues in this forum. All I can do I suppose is appeal to members to disregard all attempts at diversion and stick to the tasks at hand.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have no idea who John Dolva may be, but this has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read. If you cannot cut through the crap, the nonsense, and the disinformation, you will never be able to make heads or tails of what happened to JFK. These books run about 500 pages apiece and are chock full of new findings about the medical evidence, the photographic evidence, and how Lee Oswald was framed. We are not having tea and crumpets! As for attempting to impugn my motives, (a) I can't recapitulate the findings in 500-page books, supported by a host of photographs, documents, and other records, on this forum; ( in case this guy missed the point, Purvis was attacking a book he had never even read, as I suspect is also the case here; © I don't care if anyone buys these books or not, but if they are interested in what happened to JFK, then I cannot imagine how they could begin to grasp the full dimensions of the cover-up without studying them; and (d) neither I nor any of my contributors make a dime from the sales of these books, royalties from which are recycled to support additional assassination research. We, alas!, do not have the financial and political resources of the United States' government at hand to support our efforts. We must do the best we can with the resources at our disposal. I regard posts like this one as a disservice to assassination research and an insult to the members of this forum. How are we supposed to expose errors, mistakes, and corruption in research on complex but important topics like this if we don't subject it to critical scrutiny? And I cannot countenance the stupidity of deploring research by individuals who are actually qualified to undertake it. Does he think the average man off the street can ascertain whether X-rays have been altered or a brain is not that of JFK? Give me a break. Dolva is as wrong as wrong can be about these posts and JFK research. He ought to give the matter some serious thought.

This response from Purvis is as pathetic as I had anticipated.  He admits that he has never read the book, just as he admitted when he wrote to me complaining about being cited by Marler that he had not read the chapter!  He does not offer even a single argument about any of our studies.  But then, how could he?  He has not read our books!  Someone who pulls stunts like these does not deserve to be taken seriously.  There are contributions from eleven experts on different aspects of the case in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), from nine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and from six in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).  I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the discoveries published in these books does not have the slightest idea of the current state of scientific research on the death of JFK.  If Purvis, with his vast background in covert ops, does not even understand the propaganda games played with amazon.com, he is even less qualified to address these issues than I have supposed.  I thought he might be man enough to admit he was wrong.  I was mistaken.  Read the books and judge for yourself.  In my opinion, this man--with all of his pretensions--is a complete waste of time.  He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Having, long before you came onto the scene, expended ample funds on junk books related to the assassination of JFK, I saw little to be gained from "your" presentation.

Especially after having read it's reviews.

Nevertheless, my oldest son purchased it for me merely because of my work which was published under the name of Chuck Marler.

The book is now located adjacent to David Lifton's "BEST EVIDENCE".

The two compliment one another in absurdity.

Obviously, you needed some factual evidence in your presentation to help buttress the other unsupported claims.

Tom

P.S.  Exactly where are all of those broken backs?  About all that I am aware of is the sore ribs which I personally incurred from laughing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This sort of bickering does nothing to encourage research. As far as I understand this forum is not intended as a market for the sale or promotion of publications. There is obviouosly a lot of such stuff going on outside this forum that I'm blissfully unaware of. So largely I try to take people as they come with no regard for the number or order of alphabeticals before or after their monikers. I find the information that Tom is providing helpful. It would also be good , I think, if those who comment on any topics on this forum do so in a spirit of furthering research. I find using it as opportunities to establish a kind of intellectual, academic snobbery replete with blatant sales pitches quite off putting. I think the people interested in the various subjects on this forum are capable of greater discernment than some appear to think. I don't agree with some of Tom's conclusions, that may be because what I am basing my own theory doesn't support it, or I am reading my basis wrongly, or I'm ignoring some aspects that slant's my attitudes, or whatever. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else is wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are right in some things and wrong in others. I can only find this out by free and open exchange of information.

I believe that genealogy research is a time consuming and difficult thing and that Tom takes the time to do so publicly in this forum is a good thing. Amongst what may turn out to be irrelevancies I think there are many research angles. I've certainly alredy gained background perspectives that flesh out the perception of time, place and people relevant to this investigation. Tom graciously implore people to make up their own mind. Others imagine that stating the certainty of their position without providing any thing except a sales pitch necessarily makes that position correct.

Those who wish to peruse or pursue Tom's or anyone elses information will do so, those who don't, hopefully JUST don't. To generate an anti-research atmosphere is instructive insofar as it reveals the motives of those who do so. Perhaps a separate topic could be started so that those who desire to do that can post to it. Otherwise this sort of thing just clogs things up. JohnD

ps. re the clavius site. Well, that is a surprise to me. If correct it would seem to explain some of the difficulties in having productive discourse on photo forensic issues in this forum. All I can do I suppose is appeal to members to disregard all attempts at diversion and stick to the tasks at hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 24, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

This response from Purvis is as pathetic as I had anticipated.   He admits that he has never read the book, just as he admitted when he wrote to me complaining about being cited by Marler that he had not read the chapter!  He does not offer even a single argument about any of our studies.  But then, how could he?  He has not read our books!   Someone who pulls stunts like these does not deserve to be taken seriously.  There are contributions from eleven experts on different aspects of the case in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), from nine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and from six in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).  I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the discoveries published in these books does not have the slightest idea of the current state of scientific research on the death of JFK.  If Purvis, with his vast background in covert ops, does not even understand the propaganda games played with amazon.com, he is even less qualified to address these issues than I have supposed.  I thought he might be man enough to admit he was wrong.  I was mistaken.  Read the books and judge for yourself.  In my opinion, this man--with all of his pretensions--is a complete waste of time.  He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Having, long before you came onto the scene, expended ample funds on junk books related to the assassination of JFK, I saw little to be gained from "your" presentation.

Especially after having read it's reviews.

Nevertheless, my oldest son purchased it for me merely because of my work which was published under the name of Chuck Marler.

The book is now located adjacent to David Lifton's "BEST EVIDENCE".

The two compliment one another in absurdity.

Obviously, you needed some factual evidence in your presentation to help buttress the other unsupported claims.

Tom

P.S.  Exactly where are all of those broken backs?  About all that I am aware of is the sore ribs which I personally incurred from laughing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This sort of bickering does nothing to encourage research. As far as I understand this forum is not intended as a market for the sale or promotion of publications. There is obviouosly a lot of such stuff going on outside this forum that I'm blissfully unaware of. So largely I try to take people as they come with no regard for the number or order of alphabeticals before or after their monikers. I find the information that Tom is providing helpful. It would also be good , I think, if those who comment on any topics on this forum do so in a spirit of furthering research. I find using it as opportunities to establish a kind of intellectual, academic snobbery replete with blatant sales pitches quite off putting. I think the people interested in the various subjects on this forum are capable of greater discernment than some appear to think. I don't agree with some of Tom's conclusions, that may be because what I am basing my own theory doesn't support it, or I am reading my basis wrongly, or I'm ignoring some aspects that slant's my attitudes, or whatever. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else is wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are right in some things and wrong in others. I can only find this out by free and open exchange of information.

I believe that genealogy research is a time consuming and difficult thing and that Tom takes the time to do so publicly in this forum is a good thing. Amongst what may turn out to be irrelevancies I think there are many research angles. I've certainly alredy gained background perspectives that flesh out the perception of time, place and people relevant to this investigation. Tom graciously implore people to make up their own mind. Others imagine that stating the certainty of their position without providing any thing except a sales pitch necessarily makes that position correct.

Those who wish to peruse or pursue Tom's or anyone elses information will do so, those who don't, hopefully JUST don't. To generate an anti-research atmosphere is instructive insofar as it reveals the motives of those who do so. Perhaps a separate topic could be started so that those who desire to do that can post to it. Otherwise this sort of thing just clogs things up. JohnD

ps. re the clavius site. Well, that is a surprise to me. If correct it would seem to explain some of the difficulties in having productive discourse on photo forensic issues in this forum. All I can do I suppose is appeal to members to disregard all attempts at diversion and stick to the tasks at hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Tom Purvis is not attempting to "sell" anything, one way or another.

Therefore, he has no financial gain, or for that matter, anything to gain by providing the information.

2. To the extent possible, the sources of research information are provided.

3. Those who recognize the value of research will/may review it for themselves and thereafter make their own decision as to the impact on LHO and his potential motives. Unfortunately, unless raised in the segregated south, they will still not fully understand that this attitude still prevails in a large portion of what was once the Confederacy.

4. If and when I should arrive at the position that it is claimed that one should pay for the knowledge or information, then I would advise to beware.

Mr. Simkin has provided a public service in attempting to provide knowledge and information related to the assassination of JFK.

So have others.

Unfortunately, there continues to be those who are attempting to profit from this event in history, and the "profit motive" has lead to many who for a price will tell you how the body of JFK was kidnapped and altered, or how mythological multiple assassins and the CIA/SS/FBI/Anti-Castro Cubans/Pro-Castro Cubans/etc; etc; etc; accomplished the feat of assassinating JFK and thereafter removing all factual evidence of such involvement.

"There is a moral obligation to take advantage of all fools"!

Attributed to W.C. Fields.

"Wait here, I am going home and get my dog and bring him back to see if he believes this S**t."

Attributed to Oscar Wyatt after takeover of Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. and being briefed as to the great financial status of the company which he had just exercised a "hostile" takeover against.

Tom

[Bernice Moore]

IMO

John Dolva stated....

""As far as I understand this forum is not intended as a """market for the sale or promotion of publications.""

Wrong ,John, and these are far from being the only books ever mentioned on this Forum, far , far from it...

Tom Purvis wrote...

""Unfortunately, there continues to be"""""""" those who are attempting to profit from this event in history, """""""""and the "profit motive" has lead to many who for a price will tell you how the body of JFK was kidnapped and altered, or how mythological multiple assassins and the CIA/SS/FBI/Anti-Castro Cubans/Pro-Castro Cubans/etc; etc; etc; accomplished the feat of assassinating JFK and thereafter removing all factual evidence of such involvement.""

Way wrong on this one Tom.....

Dr.J.Fetzer stated.....

""Purvis was attacking a book he had never even read, as I suspect is also the case here; © I don't care if anyone buys these books or not, but if they are interested in what happened to JFK, then I cannot imagine how they could begin to grasp the full dimensions of the cover-up without studying them; and (d) """""""neither I nor any of my contributors make a dime from the sales of these books, royalties from which are recycled to support additional assassination research.""""""""" We, alas!, do not have the financial and political resources of the United States' government at hand to support our efforts. We must do the best we can with the resources at our disposal""

If anyone wants to do something to help research along...and or to further their studies by information from qualified studies, by the likes of Dr.Mantik...and not someone who is perhaps guessing because of their own preconceived or

preinstructed theory..and or who hasn't read them.....then by all means pick these books up at your local book store, or borrow from your Library....if you cannot afford them..

Do yourself a favor, and do read them for yourself, not because anyone tells to do so or not to, or that there may be a profit....and since when are best sellers in the research world... and their profits not passed along to the author, BUT NOT KEPT IN THIS CASE.....do you honestly think that other author's of other subjects ....J.K. Rowling's for instance, passes along all profits from hers, or any other author....very few if any,I am sure. They are in the business of making a profit.....BUT NOT KEPT as I have said in this case....

How many other authors do the same....anyone know ?? Can anyone mention,any other books that are sold in the research world, where all the profits are recycled back into such...I really would like to know if anyone has any information about such...????

Get a grip....you xxxxe disturbers are becoming extremely tiresome, and there are some on this Forum....you have so much to say in regards to just about all, and comment in just about every thread, some do, and yet preach, that they know nothing they are only here to learn.. .and they continually make their snide remarks.in passing...Gives us a break....the members here are extremely intelligent people, you continually insult them..by thinking they do not see.....Give it up...

This has been an advetisement.....so sue me.....

B.....

Edited July 24, 2005 by Bernice Moore

[Ron Ecker]

the "profit motive" has lead to many who for a price will tell you how the body of JFK was kidnapped and altered, or how mythological multiple assassins and the CIA/SS/FBI/Anti-Castro Cubans/Pro-Castro Cubans/etc; etc; etc; accomplished the feat of assassinating JFK and thereafter removing all factual evidence of such involvement.

The body of JFK was kidnapped and altered, and there were multiple assassins.

This information is provided as a public service and is free of charge. There is no profit motive. There is no copyright and everyone is free to take it or leave it.

Ron