The CIA Did Not Do It!

[Bernice Moore]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly..Ron........

and if anyone has not studied nor read enough to not know the

difference then please do so ,read and learn...

B....

[Mark Knight]

If one researches and compiles evidence, and then refrains from publishing his/her discoveries, that material may be lost forever to the research community. But if one does publish his/her book, they at once become succeptible to the charge of marketing or promoting the sale of the books whenever they discuss the contents of the book.

Based upon that thought, the idea that discussing this information merely promotes book sales is a non-starter. Mr. Purvis, whose work I have complimented on this forum, is proof that one does not necessarily purchase a book--or read it--because of its mention on this or any other forum.

I read as many books on the subject as I can acquire, as I get then time to do so. Most don't agree 100% with the ideas I had initially. But to choose to NOT read them, simply because of a preconceived notion [prejudice, by definition], would merely make me WILLINGLY IGNORANT of the content, and unable to engage in an intelligent and informed dialogue or discussion.

Profit motive? perhaps, in some cases. But the JFK assassination profited a LOT of people who didn't pull the trigger themselves [LBJ immediately comes to mind, among innumerable others in the oil, defense, and illegal drug "industries"]. I don't begrudge someone a profit, if the information brings us closer to the solution of what is arguably the crime of the [20th] century. Fetzer, Bishop, Manchester, Epstein, Lane, Groden. Livingstone, Crenshaw, Posner, and all the others...the public--or that part of the public which actually cares--would know considerably fewer facts of the case without their work. And without facts being brought to light, the truth would eventually elude us completely. And since NOBODY writes a book with the intention of providing a means of support for that one uneven table leg, impugning the profit motive is a fall-back position, in my opinion; one for use when one cannot--or will not--argue on the SUBSTANCE of the book(s) in question.

In other words, it seems that some here subscribe to the theory that, if you cannot argue the message, then by all means attack the messenger. [iMHO, that would make one a perfect fit in a certain American political party, which I will refrain from naming due to ongoing lawsuit threats on the forum. ]

[Thomas H. Purvis]

If one researches and compiles evidence, and then refrains from publishing his/her discoveries, that material may be lost forever to the research community.  But if one does publish his/her book, they at once become succeptible to the charge of marketing or promoting the sale of the books whenever they discuss the contents of the book.

Based upon that thought, the idea that discussing this information merely promotes book sales is a non-starter.  Mr. Purvis, whose work I have complimented on this forum, is proof that one does not necessarily purchase a book--or read it--because of its mention on this or any other forum.

I read as many books on the subject as I can acquire, as I get then time to do so.  Most don't agree 100% with the ideas I had initially.  But to choose to NOT read them, simply because of a preconceived notion [prejudice, by definition], would merely make me WILLINGLY IGNORANT of the content, and unable to engage in an intelligent and informed dialogue or discussion.

Profit motive?  perhaps, in some cases.  But the JFK assassination profited a LOT of people who didn't pull the trigger themselves [LBJ immediately comes to mind, among innumerable others in the oil, defense, and illegal drug "industries"].  I don't begrudge someone a profit, if the information brings us closer to the solution of what is arguably the crime of the [20th] century.  Fetzer, Bishop, Manchester, Epstein, Lane, Groden. Livingstone, Crenshaw, Posner, and all the others...the public--or that part of the public which actually cares--would know considerably fewer facts  of the case without their work.  And without facts being brought to light, the truth would eventually elude us completely.  And since NOBODY writes a book with the intention of providing a means of support for that one uneven table leg, impugning the profit motive is a fall-back position, in my opinion; one for use when one cannot--or will not--argue on the SUBSTANCE of the book(s) in question.

In other words, it seems that some here subscribe to the theory that, if you cannot argue the message, then by all means attack the messenger.  [iMHO, that would make one a perfect fit in a certain American political party, which I will refrain from naming due to ongoing lawsuit threats on the forum. ]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed!

One should find and read each and every item if all sides of the issues are to be fully examined.

Thereafter, one should give particular attention to the "substance" of what is read.

The "substance of the book" which by the way I have read, has been clearly argued by those far better qualified than am I.

We are well into 40 years, and yet not a single iota of factual evidence has been presented which demonstrates that JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired from any position other than the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Rumor; hearsay; half-truth; innuendo; etc, do not represent a factual basis upon which to build a conspiracy theory.

Neither does a misunderstanding of, or complete lack of understanding of the existing and known physical evidence.

Reading is an important and critical aspect of research!

So is first person contact with those persons who have had direct experience with examination of the physical evidence.

Among those whom I have personally contacted and/or cummunicated with or/ spoken with years ago are:

1. Dr. J. J. Humes-----Would no longer discuss the subject due to the actions of

many other researchers.

2. Dr. Pierre Finck----Same as Dr. Humes.

3. Dr. J. T. Boswell---Many, many, long and extended conversations &

communications related to the

autopsy, etc.

4. FBI Agent Robert Frazier--Many conversations with Agent Frazier as regards the

ballistic evidence and the Carcano rifle. I even sent Agent

Frazier an extra copy of one of the earliest assassination

books published, of which I had two copies. (Paperback)

5. FBI Agent John F. Gallagher---Several conversations with Agent Gallagher in

regards to examination of the bullet fragments at Oak Ridge,

TN. Having been to Oak Ridge years prior, gave us that

"common ground" in which to discuss this subject.

6. FBI Agent Bill Heilman---Laboratory Agent for the FBI who assisted Agent

Gallagher at Oak Ridge.

7. FBI Agent Henry Heiberger---The only agent from the FBI Laboratory to

conduct physical examination of the clothing of JFK.

8. Hugh Aynsworth----

9. Dr. Russell Buhite

10. Dr. William Eckert

11. Larrry Howard

12. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

13. Dr. Clyde Snow

14. Retired FBI Agent James Worrell

15. Dr. Charles Wilbur

16. Dr. Cyril Wecht

In addition to the above, I was apparantly the first person to recognize the significance of the WC re-enactment and survey, and therefore the first to contact Mr. Robert West, registered land surveyor, Dallas, Tx.

This contact occurred back in the early 1990's.

As a result of this contact and friendship with Mr. West, I acquired the survey plats for the:

1. Time/Life location for impact point of shots fired. Dated 11/26/63

2. U.S. Secret Sevice re-enactment of the assassination. Dated 12/5/63

3. FBI re-positioning of shots fired. Dated 02/07/1964

4. Full-sized WC re-enactment plat. Dated May 31, 1964

In addition to this, I have copies of most of the survey notes generated by Mr. West and his survey crew during the above work. complete with bench marks, established elevation controls, angles; etc; which were utilized throughout each of the above listed survey plat generation.

This is to include where Mr. West was directed to measure the exact size and elevation of the infamous sign which now blocks our view in the Z-film.

Mr. West was a wealth of information as regards to the completely "phony" WC re-enactment of the assassination as well as having witnessed other critical actions which he did not fully understand until explained to him at his Turtle Creek home by myself.

Most of you who have come along this late in the game will never get the opportunity to speak with those who have/had direct first hand knowledge of the events.

Many of the doors were even closed to me long ago due to the unsupported accusations, claims, statements, etc; of those who wanted to "write their books" and thereafter impugned the honesty and integrity of honorable persons.

That one does not understand what the evidence indicates is not necessarily any sign of some giant conspiracy.

It merely means that one does not understand the evidence!

It is one of those traits of human nature to not be willing to admit that we just can not understand something.

Blaming this on the CIA/FBI/U.S. Government/etc; etc; has become status quo on the JFK issue.

I would suppose that it is better than having to admit to the alternative.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

If one researches and compiles evidence, and then refrains from publishing his/her discoveries, that material may be lost forever to the research community.  But if one does publish his/her book, they at once become succeptible to the charge of marketing or promoting the sale of the books whenever they discuss the contents of the book.

Based upon that thought, the idea that discussing this information merely promotes book sales is a non-starter.  Mr. Purvis, whose work I have complimented on this forum, is proof that one does not necessarily purchase a book--or read it--because of its mention on this or any other forum.

I read as many books on the subject as I can acquire, as I get then time to do so.  Most don't agree 100% with the ideas I had initially.  But to choose to NOT read them, simply because of a preconceived notion [prejudice, by definition], would merely make me WILLINGLY IGNORANT of the content, and unable to engage in an intelligent and informed dialogue or discussion.

Profit motive?  perhaps, in some cases.  But the JFK assassination profited a LOT of people who didn't pull the trigger themselves [LBJ immediately comes to mind, among innumerable others in the oil, defense, and illegal drug "industries"].  I don't begrudge someone a profit, if the information brings us closer to the solution of what is arguably the crime of the [20th] century.  Fetzer, Bishop, Manchester, Epstein, Lane, Groden. Livingstone, Crenshaw, Posner, and all the others...the public--or that part of the public which actually cares--would know considerably fewer facts  of the case without their work.  And without facts being brought to light, the truth would eventually elude us completely.  And since NOBODY writes a book with the intention of providing a means of support for that one uneven table leg, impugning the profit motive is a fall-back position, in my opinion; one for use when one cannot--or will not--argue on the SUBSTANCE of the book(s) in question.

In other words, it seems that some here subscribe to the theory that, if you cannot argue the message, then by all means attack the messenger.  [iMHO, that would make one a perfect fit in a certain American political party, which I will refrain from naming due to ongoing lawsuit threats on the forum. ]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed!

One should find and read each and every item if all sides of the issues are to be fully examined.

Thereafter, one should give particular attention to the "substance" of what is read.

The "substance of the book" which by the way I have read, has been clearly argued by those far better qualified than am I.

We are well into 40 years, and yet not a single iota of factual evidence has been presented which demonstrates that JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired from any position other than the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Rumor; hearsay; half-truth; innuendo; etc, do not represent a factual basis upon which to build a conspiracy theory.

Neither does a misunderstanding of, or complete lack of understanding of the existing and known physical evidence.

Reading is an important and critical aspect of research!

So is first person contact with those persons who have had direct experience with examination of the physical evidence.

Among those whom I have personally contacted and/or cummunicated with or/ spoken with years ago are:

1. Dr. J. J. Humes-----Would no longer discuss the subject due to the actions of

many other researchers.

2. Dr. Pierre Finck----Same as Dr. Humes.

3. Dr. J. T. Boswell---Many, many, long and extended conversations &

communications related to the

autopsy, etc.

4. FBI Agent Robert Frazier--Many conversations with Agent Frazier as regards the

ballistic evidence and the Carcano rifle. I even sent Agent

Frazier an extra copy of one of the earliest assassination

books published, of which I had two copies. (Paperback)

5. FBI Agent John F. Gallagher---Several conversations with Agent Gallagher in

regards to examination of the bullet fragments at Oak Ridge,

TN. Having been to Oak Ridge years prior, gave us that

"common ground" in which to discuss this subject.

6. FBI Agent Bill Heilman---Laboratory Agent for the FBI who assisted Agent

Gallagher at Oak Ridge.

7. FBI Agent Henry Heiberger---The only agent from the FBI Laboratory to

conduct physical examination of the clothing of JFK.

8. Hugh Aynsworth----

9. Dr. Russell Buhite

10. Dr. William Eckert

11. Larrry Howard

12. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

13. Dr. Clyde Snow

14. Retired FBI Agent James Worrell

15. Dr. Charles Wilbur

16. Dr. Cyril Wecht

In addition to the above, I was apparantly the first person to recognize the significance of the WC re-enactment and survey, and therefore the first to contact Mr. Robert West, registered land surveyor, Dallas, Tx.

This contact occurred back in the early 1990's.

As a result of this contact and friendship with Mr. West, I acquired the survey plats for the:

1. Time/Life location for impact point of shots fired. Dated 11/26/63

2. U.S. Secret Sevice re-enactment of the assassination. Dated 12/5/63

3. FBI re-positioning of shots fired. Dated 02/07/1964

4. Full-sized WC re-enactment plat. Dated May 31, 1964

In addition to this, I have copies of most of the survey notes generated by Mr. West and his survey crew during the above work. complete with bench marks, established elevation controls, angles; etc; which were utilized throughout each of the above listed survey plat generation.

This is to include where Mr. West was directed to measure the exact size and elevation of the infamous sign which now blocks our view in the Z-film.

Mr. West was a wealth of information as regards to the completely "phony" WC re-enactment of the assassination as well as having witnessed other critical actions which he did not fully understand until explained to him at his Turtle Creek home by myself.

Most of you who have come along this late in the game will never get the opportunity to speak with those who have/had direct first hand knowledge of the events.

Many of the doors were even closed to me long ago due to the unsupported accusations, claims, statements, etc; of those who wanted to "write their books" and thereafter impugned the honesty and integrity of honorable persons.

That one does not understand what the evidence indicates is not necessarily any sign of some giant conspiracy.

It merely means that one does not understand the evidence!

It is one of those traits of human nature to not be willing to admit that we just can not understand something.

Blaming this on the CIA/FBI/U.S. Government/etc; etc; has become status quo on the JFK issue.

I would suppose that it is better than having to admit to the alternative.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since we have come to this point, may as well continue:

17. E. Michael Kahoe:--- Section Chief, Violent Crimes and Major Offenders, Criminal Investigation Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

18. Dr. Gary Aguilar, MD-----San Francisco, CA

19. Chuck Marler

20. Mr. George Lardner Jr.----Washington, Post

21. Mr. Jerry Rose

22. Mr. James Looney---Firearms & Toolmark Examiner, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

23. Dr. Robert Ringrose---Medical Examiner, Logan County, OK

24. Dr. Jack Doyle----Retired Military Surgeon

There are of course a few others such as SS Agent Clint Hill who would not discuss the subject and others who possessed nothing of great value.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Some of us have a different interpretation of what constitutes patriotism, and attempt to approach items differently than running around point the finger at the entire US. Government.

Tom

[Jack White]

Mr. Purvis seems to think he is the ONLY person who

had contact with various persons connected with the case.

I know many researchers who covered the same ground

he claims, and reached entirely different conclusions.

And HUGH AYNESWORTH as a reliable source?

Certainly many on the Purvis list do not share the Purvis

views. For instance, Dr. Cyril Wecht.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis seems to think he is the ONLY person who

had contact with various persons connected with the case.

I know many researchers who covered the same ground

he claims, and reached entirely different conclusions.

And HUGH AYNESWORTH as a reliable source?    

Certainly many on the Purvis list do not share the Purvis

views. For instance, Dr. Cyril Wecht.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For that matter, neither did Dr. Boswell or Dr. Humes.

Neither does Ken Rahn; John McAdams, or a host of other highly qualified individuals.

However, one can rest assured that to my knowledge, those who are thoroughly qualified to discuss the merits of the factual evidence, have provided nothing of substance to support shots from other than the rear, and above.

And, a "source" of information is merely that!

As with the intelligence gathering operations, the reliability of any information can be no more reliable than the source from which it is obtained.

But then again, it is assumed that you learned that during the attempt to prove falsification of the backyard photo.

And, Mr. Purvis is merely providing information to demonstrate to those who for whatever read these postings, that he is not just some "new guy" who just walked in off the street.

Exactly when was the last time that you spoke with Dr. Boswell/ Dr. Perry/FBI Agents Frazier; Gallagher; Heilman; Heiberger; etc; etc; etc.

And, I might add that it does little good to speak with these persons if one has no concept as to what questions need to be asked.

Tom

[Jack White]

Jim Marrs interviewed both surveyors Robert West and Chester Breneman

and ran stories about their beliefs LONG BEFORE THEY EVERY HEARD OF

MR. PURVIS!

West and Breneman both believed the Warren Report was wrong.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jim Marrs interviewed both surveyors Robert West and Chester Breneman

and ran stories about their beliefs LONG BEFORE THEY EVERY HEARD OF

MR. PURVIS!

West and Breneman both believed the Warren Report was wrong.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So!

As stated, had he known what questions to ask, then he could have been the one to prove that it was wrong.

Actually, it does not even require a smart person to recognize that the WC re-enactment of the assassination is "wrong".

As well as the WC solution to the assassination.

However, it does take a little extra in order to be able to explain the reasoning behind it all.

Mr. West and I enjoyed many a good laugh when I explained to him many years ago what the WC re-enactment was all about.

Originally, he was under the impression that it was mostly just a group of politicians and FBI Agents who had no idea as to what they were doing.

Needless to say, his opinion changed.

Certainly one of the best persons that it will ever be my pleasure to have met.

Tom

P.S. I did not explain it to Chuck Marler, therfore, he could offer no explanation when he allowed to be published the information which I had shared with him.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Purvis cannot possibly have actually read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and make the ridiculous assertions he makes here. The lateral cranial X-ray was altered by means of a "patch" to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head, caused by a shot from the front that entered the right temple. The man was also hit in the throat by a shot from the left front that actually passed through the windshield en route to its target. The wound to the throat was described by Malcolm Perry, M.D., three times during the Parkland Press Conference as a wound of entry. (The transcript of this press conference appears in that book as Appendix C.) These two wounds were both widely reported over radio and television the day of the assassination. If Purvis knew anything at all about the assassination, he would understand these elementary points. The anterior-posterior X-ray was altered to add a 6.5 mm metallic slice, in an evident effort to implicate a 6.5 mm weapon in the shooting. There were far too many shots fired than the official scenario allows, as a simple piece that summarizes the data explains there. I can assert categorically that, if Purvis has actually read the book, as he contends, then he is deliberately distorting its contents. And if he has not actually read the book, he is dissembling to the forum. It follows that this man is either distorting or dissembling in making these claims. (Egad! Has he never even read Joe West's summary of his conversation with Tom Robinson, which now appears in both MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX?) That is especially apparent from his posting of two form letters, which might very well be responding to trivia he has submitted. Compare them with my correspondence with the Department of Justice over our new findings concerning the alteration of the X-rays and the substitution of a brain, which was an important exchange, but of which he appears to be blilssfully unaware. He would know better if he had actually read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. It is disgraceful for someone of this low character to be participating here. Certainly, there are ample reasons not to take anything he has to say seriously, especially, I should emphasize, about the medical evidence in this case, which happens to have been the primary focus both of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. If his "contributions" are typical, then the state of research on this forum is in worse shape than I ever imagined. That bothers me. But I can now explain why he appears so ignorant about the medical findings: he is completely unfamiliar with the evidence!

If one researches and compiles evidence, and then refrains from publishing his/her discoveries, that material may be lost forever to the research community.  But if one does publish his/her book, they at once become succeptible to the charge of marketing or promoting the sale of the books whenever they discuss the contents of the book.

Based upon that thought, the idea that discussing this information merely promotes book sales is a non-starter.  Mr. Purvis, whose work I have complimented on this forum, is proof that one does not necessarily purchase a book--or read it--because of its mention on this or any other forum.

I read as many books on the subject as I can acquire, as I get then time to do so.  Most don't agree 100% with the ideas I had initially.  But to choose to NOT read them, simply because of a preconceived notion [prejudice, by definition], would merely make me WILLINGLY IGNORANT of the content, and unable to engage in an intelligent and informed dialogue or discussion.

Profit motive?  perhaps, in some cases.  But the JFK assassination profited a LOT of people who didn't pull the trigger themselves [LBJ immediately comes to mind, among innumerable others in the oil, defense, and illegal drug "industries"].  I don't begrudge someone a profit, if the information brings us closer to the solution of what is arguably the crime of the [20th] century.  Fetzer, Bishop, Manchester, Epstein, Lane, Groden. Livingstone, Crenshaw, Posner, and all the others...the public--or that part of the public which actually cares--would know considerably fewer facts  of the case without their work.  And without facts being brought to light, the truth would eventually elude us completely.  And since NOBODY writes a book with the intention of providing a means of support for that one uneven table leg, impugning the profit motive is a fall-back position, in my opinion; one for use when one cannot--or will not--argue on the SUBSTANCE of the book(s) in question.

In other words, it seems that some here subscribe to the theory that, if you cannot argue the message, then by all means attack the messenger.  [iMHO, that would make one a perfect fit in a certain American political party, which I will refrain from naming due to ongoing lawsuit threats on the forum. ]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed!

One should find and read each and every item if all sides of the issues are to be fully examined.

Thereafter, one should give particular attention to the "substance" of what is read.

The "substance of the book" which by the way I have read, has been clearly argued by those far better qualified than am I.

We are well into 40 years, and yet not a single iota of factual evidence has been presented which demonstrates that JFK was assassinated by shots which were fired from any position other than the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Rumor; hearsay; half-truth; innuendo; etc, do not represent a factual basis upon which to build a conspiracy theory.

Neither does a misunderstanding of, or complete lack of understanding of the existing and known physical evidence.

Reading is an important and critical aspect of research!

So is first person contact with those persons who have had direct experience with examination of the physical evidence.

Among those whom I have personally contacted and/or cummunicated with or/ spoken with years ago are:

1. Dr. J. J. Humes-----Would no longer discuss the subject due to the actions of

many other researchers.

2. Dr. Pierre Finck----Same as Dr. Humes.

3. Dr. J. T. Boswell---Many, many, long and extended conversations &

communications related to the

autopsy, etc.

4. FBI Agent Robert Frazier--Many conversations with Agent Frazier as regards the

ballistic evidence and the Carcano rifle. I even sent Agent

Frazier an extra copy of one of the earliest assassination

books published, of which I had two copies. (Paperback)

5. FBI Agent John F. Gallagher---Several conversations with Agent Gallagher in

regards to examination of the bullet fragments at Oak Ridge,

TN. Having been to Oak Ridge years prior, gave us that

"common ground" in which to discuss this subject.

6. FBI Agent Bill Heilman---Laboratory Agent for the FBI who assisted Agent

Gallagher at Oak Ridge.

7. FBI Agent Henry Heiberger---The only agent from the FBI Laboratory to

conduct physical examination of the clothing of JFK.

8. Hugh Aynsworth----

9. Dr. Russell Buhite

10. Dr. William Eckert

11. Larrry Howard

12. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

13. Dr. Clyde Snow

14. Retired FBI Agent James Worrell

15. Dr. Charles Wilbur

16. Dr. Cyril Wecht

In addition to the above, I was apparantly the first person to recognize the significance of the WC re-enactment and survey, and therefore the first to contact Mr. Robert West, registered land surveyor, Dallas, Tx.

This contact occurred back in the early 1990's.

As a result of this contact and friendship with Mr. West, I acquired the survey plats for the:

1. Time/Life location for impact point of shots fired. Dated 11/26/63

2. U.S. Secret Sevice re-enactment of the assassination. Dated 12/5/63

3. FBI re-positioning of shots fired. Dated 02/07/1964

4. Full-sized WC re-enactment plat. Dated May 31, 1964

In addition to this, I have copies of most of the survey notes generated by Mr. West and his survey crew during the above work. complete with bench marks, established elevation controls, angles; etc; which were utilized throughout each of the above listed survey plat generation.

This is to include where Mr. West was directed to measure the exact size and elevation of the infamous sign which now blocks our view in the Z-film.

Mr. West was a wealth of information as regards to the completely "phony" WC re-enactment of the assassination as well as having witnessed other critical actions which he did not fully understand until explained to him at his Turtle Creek home by myself.

Most of you who have come along this late in the game will never get the opportunity to speak with those who have/had direct first hand knowledge of the events.

Many of the doors were even closed to me long ago due to the unsupported accusations, claims, statements, etc; of those who wanted to "write their books" and thereafter impugned the honesty and integrity of honorable persons.

That one does not understand what the evidence indicates is not necessarily any sign of some giant conspiracy.

It merely means that one does not understand the evidence!

It is one of those traits of human nature to not be willing to admit that we just can not understand something.

Blaming this on the CIA/FBI/U.S. Government/etc; etc; has become status quo on the JFK issue.

I would suppose that it is better than having to admit to the alternative.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 25, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Man, this thread has gone to hell! It seems the Tim/Shanet argument has spread like a cancer. In a probably futile attempt at statesmanship, let me make a few points. Hopefully, I won't upset anyone.

1. Mr. Purvis, you have alluded to numerous interviews you've conducted. It might prove most valuable if you reproduce in an organized form these interviews, so that other researchers may learn from them. While I welcome your attendance here, I find your claim that no evidence has ever been uncovered that would point to a second shooter a gross overstatement of the facts, particularly since you seem to lack the curiousity to read books that conflict with your opinions. If you like, we can create a separate thread whereby a number of us will attempt to demolish the single-bullet theory. You can defend it if you like. By the way, while I find the body alteration and autopsy photo falsification theories intrigiuing, I by no means subscribe to them. In my online seminar, I attempted to show how an honest look at the photos, undertaken with the assumption they are real, STILL points to a conspiracy. In my upcoming update, I'll expand on this considerably, and even take a whack at the x-rays.

I also believe, Mr. Purvis, that you should undertstand that to many, like myself, your friend Boswell's statements are among the most telling arguments ever given for conspiracy. If you compare his various face sheets, you'll see that as the conspiracy crowd started talking, he moved the back wound further and further up the neck, and then reversed himself when actually shown the photos in 97 and admitted it was squarely on the back. If you compare the position of this back wound to Dale Myers" cartoon and the 1998 laser re-enactment by DiMaio you'll see that they had to change either the President's body shape or his position in the car to make the trajectory point back to the TSBD. It DOES NOT add up. I must also admit your point about people making money off crazy theories is fairly lost on me. To my understanding, the only "researchers" making money over the last decade or so are those who are willing to go on TV and say there's not one "scintilla" of evidence pointing towards anyone besides Oswald. Scintilla, by the way, is lone-nut-ese for "I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!" I believe Posner and Bugliosi get together once a year or so and try to out-"scintilla" each other!

2. Dr. Fetzer, while I've read most of your books, and respect your work, I think it's intellectually inconsistent for you to take an elitist viewpoint on the assassination. The sad fact is that most of the incorrect impressions of the assassination were either supported or created by doctors and men of science, i.e. the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the FPP, Dr. Angel, Dr. Levine, Vincent Guinn, Thomas Canning, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Zimmerman, etc. If we are to let ourselves be enamored by the credentials of the writers in your books then we should also give weight to the credentials of these men. When confronted with such a divergence of expert opinion, one is left only with the alternative: do one's best to grasp the issues at hand and decide for oneself. So you'll have to excuse us when we who lack your background are unable to completely trust everything you say. I really wish I could--it would have saved me hundreds of hours reading articles in forensic publications and medical books.

Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Man, this thread has gone to hell!  It seems the Tim/Shanet argument has spread like a cancer.  In a probably futile attempt at statesmanship, let me make a few points.  Hopefully, I won't upset anyone.

1.  Mr. Purvis, you have alluded to numerous interviews you've conducted.  It might prove most valuable if you reproduce in an organized form these interviews, so that other researchers may learn from them.  While I welcome your attendance here, I find your claim that no evidence has ever been uncovered that would point to a second shooter a gross overstatement of the facts, particularly since you seem to lack the curiousity to read books that conflict with your opinions.  If you like, we can create a separate thread whereby a number of us will attempt to demolish the single-bullet theory.  You can defend it if you like.  By the way, while I find the body alteration and autopsy photo falsification theories intrigiuing, I by no means subscribe to them.  In my online seminar, I attempted to show how an honest look at the photos, undertaken with the assumption they are real, STILL points to a conspiracy.  In my upcoming update, I'll expand on this considerably, and even take a whack at the x-rays.

I also believe, Mr. Purvis, that you should undertstand that to many, like myself, your friend Boswell's statements are among the most telling arguments ever given for conspiracy. If you compare his various face sheets, you'll see that as the conspiracy crowd started talking, he moved the back wound further and further up the neck, and then reversed himself when actually shown the photos in 97 and admitted it was squarely on the back.  If you compare the position of this back wound to Dale Myers" cartoon and the 1998 laser re-enactment by DiMaio you'll see that they had to change either the President's body shape or his position in the car to make the trajectory point back to the TSBD.  It DOES NOT add up. I must also admit your point about people making money off crazy theories is fairly lost on me.  To my understanding, the only "researchers" making money over the last decade or so are those who are willing to go on TV and say there's not one "scintilla" of evidence pointing towards anyone besides Oswald.  Scintilla, by the way, is lone-nut-ese for "I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!" I believe Posner and Bugliosi get together once a year or so and try to out-"scintilla" each other!

2.  Dr. Fetzer, while I've read most of your books, and respect your work,  I think it's intellectually inconsistent for you to take an elitist viewpoint on the assassination.  The sad fact is that most of the incorrect impressions of the assassination were either supported or created by doctors and men of science, i.e. the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the FPP, Dr. Angel, Dr. Levine, Vincent Guinn, Thomas Canning, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Zimmerman, etc.  If we are to let ourselves be enamored by the credentials of the writers in your books then we should also give weight to the credentials of these men.  When confronted with such a divergence of expert opinion, one is left only with the alternative: do one's best to grasp the issues at hand and decide for oneself.  So you'll have to excuse us when we who lack your background are unable to completely trust everything you say.  I really wish I could--it would have saved me hundreds of hours reading articles in forensic publications and medical books.

Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be quite simple to jump out and claim "such and such".

Providing the background history, as in the case of LHO is essential in understanding who and what he was.

It is also essential in demonstrating the direct associations of members of his direct family and their direct connections to other persons.

New Orleans,LA is the home of Organized Crime. Therefore, the cellular organization of Organized Crime was well established here long before other areas even heard of it.

The "connections" are provided to demonstrate this similar organization among those who would have kept New Orleans at status quo.

JFK was assassinated as a result of the changes which he was forcing upon such a society. These changes resulted in the loss of literally millions of dollars due to Cuba, and the forced integration of the most prestegious bastion against integration to exist.-----Tulane University.

Rest assured that when Black students entered Tulane University for the first time in early 1963, the final signature on the "Death Warrant" of JFK was put in place.

And, considering the circumstances of his death, I have my doubts that the death of Joseph Merrick Jones & his wife in the unsolved house fire was a mere accident.

Your "no side taken" posting is appreciated.

At the moment, one can see that I am still attempting to present the environment and conncetions of those in New Orleans during the time of LHO.

This is in itself a considerable undertaking and one can only follow it if he gets a board and draws in the "cell" connections.

In this regard, all roads do not lead to Rome!

They lead to a group of wealthy & prominent persons who are products of the Southern Cause.

In the event we can get through this without being banned from the forum, then perhaps on to other items related to the actual assassination.

Tom

P.S. I am fully aware that the SBT/Magic Bullet is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination. (AKA--Lie)

Not unlike the WC re-enactment of the assassination, this does not even require being smart to recognize.

Lastly, I am quite pleased as well as impressed by your approach to resolving this enigma.

It is the only method to do so which will result in any success.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Some of us have a different interpretation of what constitutes patriotism, and attempt to approach items differently than running around point the finger at the entire US. Government.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is only one (1) "form" letter. It merely got loaded twice.

Were it to serve any purpose, then I suppose that a long narrative regarding my correspondence and meetings with representatives of Senator Boren could be presented.

However, it would be, not unlike presentation of other various correspondences from Senator Boren, of little value in resolving the facts of the JFK assassination.

In working through his aides and Director of Eastern Operations, information was provided to Senator Boren which demonstrated the need for the JFK records to be released.

Rest assured it took multiple meetings with these persons and convincing them of the problems of the JFK assassination before Senator Boren even became involved.

To his credit, Senator Boren recognized this need and thereafter acted on it.

What is presented is somewhat the history and "birth" of the participation of Senator David Boren, Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee, in release of the closed records in the JFK assassination.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. After my son expended his funds to purchase the book, and even though I had little remaining interest in the subject of JFK assassination, I nevertheless took the time to read the book.

2. Therefore, it must be my complete lack of reading comprehension which prevented me from understanding the presented claims.

As regards Dr. Perry, I can only base my findings on what he personally told to me and what he wrote on one of our correspondences.

Tom

[Christopher T. George]

JFK was assassinated as a result of the changes which he was forcing upon such a society.  These changes resulted in the loss of literally millions of dollars due to Cuba, and the forced integration of the most prestegious bastion against integration to exist.-----Tulane University.

Rest assured that when Black students entered Tulane University for the first time in early 1963, the final signature on the "Death Warrant" of JFK was put in place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tom

Of course this presupposes that the planning and orders for execution of the assassination came out of the south. You might well be right but that theory would not seem to explain the subsequent government cover-up of the facts of the assassination. It would seem more likely that elements of the government may have been complicit in the assassination beforehand as well as after the event rather than that the motivation for the assassination came from the south.

All my best

Chris