Jump to content
The Education Forum

Thomas H. Purvis--posting methodology


Recommended Posts

Let me begin by saying that this is certainly not a criticism of Tom's knowledge or dedication and

I acknowledge readily that he probably far surpasses me in both areas.

BUT....I would very much appreciate an explanation by either Tom or any other forum member of his posting methodology

I at times find myself interested in his thoughts but it is like trying to solve a puzzle following his numerous and somewhat interrelated postings.

As a matter of fact I find it damned frustrating, and made even more so, because I am interested often in what he has to offer, at least on those few occasions that I have been able to piece together his meaning.

I feel at times that he is baiting me to continue. At other times I feel that he is conducting a never ending class in assassination theory.

Perhaps my thinking is stoic---

outdated---

I suppose part of my problem is that I have always been a "bottom

line" type person. I like to know what is being proposed. I often feel that Tom is "toying" with the forum.

What I am really saying is that I wish that if Tom has something that he wants to tell us, that he should do just that.

If I want mystery I can always turn to Doyle or MRS. Marple.

I come here to learn---not to play mind games!

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me begin by saying that this is certainly not a criticism of Tom's knowledge or dedication and

I acknowledge readily that he probably far surpasses me in both areas.

BUT....I would very much appreciate an explanation by either Tom or any other forum member of his posting methodology

I at times find myself interested in his thoughts but it is like trying to solve a puzzle following his numerous and somewhat interrelated postings.

As a matter of fact I find it damned frustrating, and made even more so, because I am interested often in what he has to offer, at least on those few occasions that I have been able to piece together his meaning.

I feel at times that he is baiting me to continue. At other times I feel that he is conducting a never ending class in assassination theory.

Perhaps my thinking is stoic---

outdated---

I suppose part of my problem is that I have always been a "bottom

line" type person. I like to know what is being proposed. I often feel that Tom is "toying" with the forum.

What I am really saying is that I wish that if Tom has something that he wants to tell us, that he should do just that.

If I want mystery I can always turn to Doyle or MRS. Marple.

I come here to learn---not to play mind games!

Charlie Black

1. You would not believe it were I too inform you.

2. In order to resolve the issues of the assassination, on must think almost in the terms of "riddles".

3. The doorway to each and every riddle is being place in open sight, with it's contents exposed.

4. The WC is a master of the "mind game".

Until such time as one understands the minds, then one most assuredly will not understand the games.

5. And, the coverup of and by those who were potentially behind the assassination, by far exceeds the games of the WC.

Next riddle please!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Tom

With that very enlightening glimpse into your deepest thought processes, I feel finally that I am approaching at least the fringes of "clarity".

I must say however, that for the first time thru the swirling mist and fog of your revelations, you have finally said something which I anticipated.

Congratulations!

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, I certainly understand your points, you put what I've thought myself better than I could. As someone who would encourage Tom to continue (and I do) because of the 'nuggets' within, I've just put it down to personal style. What grates on one doesn't on another and so on. What Tom was trying to communicate with the altered survey posts took me quite some time to get the point. By the time I did the relevant documents unfortunately were no longer there. If there was some easy way of putting a link to documents in the post's Tom, that might help to some extent? I appreciate what you are saying re. getting the mindset. I'd have to, I'm always going on about it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, I certainly understand your points, you put what I've thought myself better than I could. As someone who would encourage Tom to continue (and I do) because of the 'nuggets' within, I've just put it down to personal style. What grates on one doesn't on another and so on. What Tom was trying to communicate with the altered survey posts took me quite some time to get the point. By the time I did the relevant documents unfortunately were no longer there. If there was some easy way of putting a link to documents in the post's Tom, that might help to some extent? I appreciate what you are saying re. getting the mindset. I'd have to, I'm always going on about it myself.

Some time back, I had my oldest son set up a website in which most everything was going to be posted.

He was supposed to come down this summer and do it.

As of yet, he has not arrived.

This forum allows only a minimal amount of attachment space. Therefore, many must be erased in order to make room for others.

In the event one is going to understand the manipulations of the evidence in the WC, they are having to inflame the neurons and apply considerable thought.

My posting method is absolutely nothing as compared to the WC "Bouncing Ball" technique.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The feeling I get from reading the testimonies given in the WC hearings - is that the examiners are the ones who are in possession of some sort of a "master script" from which they want to hear specific details at specific times from the "witnesses". If testimony begins to stray - the examiners stop things and redirect - if memories lapse, they fill in important details themselves or ask testifiers to read from prepared sheets - "in their own words". It seems they are always asking "Don't you mean this, instead?"... "Don't you mean that, instead?" Sometimes, when someone makes an interesting comment - laden with new possibilities for "opening up" a previously obscured area in the course of actual events - the testimony will suddenly be short-circuited by some asinine question relating to some completely different subject - something bland and uninteresting - which somehow captures the imagination of everyone concerned - and they all abandon the previous subject like it never existed. Sometimes, as in the case of Marguerite Oswald and her desire to discuss the Altgens photo - they merely thank the witness, and adjourn.

Edited by JL Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The feeling I get from reading the testimonies given in the WC hearings - is that the examiners are the ones who are in possession of some sort of a "master script" from which they want to hear specific details at specific times from the "witnesses".  If testimony begins to stray - the examiners stop things and redirect - if memories lapse, they fill in important details themselves or ask testifiers to read from prepared sheets - "in their own words".  It seems they are always asking "Don't you mean this, instead?"... "Don't you mean that, instead?"  Sometimes, when someone makes an interesting comment - laden with new possibilities for "opening up" a previously obscured area in the course of actual events - the testimony will suddenly be short-circuited by some asinine question relating to some completely different subject - something bland and uninteresting - which somehow captures the imagination of everyone concerned - and they all abandon the previous subject like it never existed.  Sometimes, they merely thank the witness, and adjourn.  I remember when Capt. Fritz was attempting to ascertain the time of the interrogation of Lee Oswald in his office when he was shown the backyard pictures on Saturday.  First, he testified that it was 12 noon - then, he said something about the fact that "they were having a great deal of difficulty establishing the time of that meeting in the middle of the day"...  Det. Rose testified that the meeting took place "very late"... "9 or 10 at night".  Fritz then read off notes pegging the time at 6 p.m.  A little further down, Allen Dulles, in a question, changes the time to 6:30 p.m. - and the other examiner starts using 6:30 p.m.  Years later, Fritz finds "original notes" - placing the time at 6:35 p.m.  Are the times 12 noon and 6 p.m. both "the middle of the day"?  What about 9 or 10 p.m.?  Everything needs to jive with the actual finding of the pictures earlier that afternoon in the garage in Irving and the making of the enlargement, CE 134.  Det. Rose testifies that he took the snapshot upstairs to be enlarged - but the HSCA determines that CE 134 was made from the negative - a 1st generation print.  Yet, the copy of CE 134 which the WC displays - is a horribly dark, contrasted print - where the body figure cannot even be distinguished from the backyard grass from the knees down - and the negative comes up missing and is never even delivered to the WC as evidence.  All subsequent reference to the negative seems to imply that it may never have been found in the first place - even though testimonies of the discovering officers Rose and Stovall are quite clear about the finding of the original snapshots, CE 133-A and CE 133-B and their accompanying 2 negatives - there is never any suggestion that the negatives differ in any way from the snapshots.  Rose's explicit testimony that the print was copied from the snapshot is simply ignored and discarded.  Rose also states that he took the photo upstairs at the beginning of the meeting - yet, Fritz's notes indicate that the first order of business in the meeting (which lasted only 40 minutes) was the showing of the enlargement, CE 134.  With the hallways so congested - how long would it take to make a brand new enlargement from the snapshot... or, from the negative - and return downstairs?  In 1993, Rose (an old man, 30 years later) comments that he really only remembers finding one negative - the one for CE 133-B.  Certainly, his WC testimony, so soon after and still fresh in his mind, should take precedence. 

  Which brings us to CE 133-C - the "stealth photo" - which finally turns up in the mid-70's (in spades) - although it is then heartily agreed upon to have been found on 11/23/63 - with it's negative - but neither ever listed, referenced or recorded by the Dallas police in any way - neither ever mentioned or turned over to the WC - yet, generously printed-up like party invitations for members of the Dallas police as "keepsakes" and "mementoes".  And, not just printed - but, cropped - for "aesthetic reasons".  Come again?  By their own stories and admissions -  they seem to have lost or mishandled more of the photographic evidence than they were able to hang onto and deliver up as evidence - their tales fly off in different directions - and, nothing adds up.  But, it's no big deal to anyone.  Nothing is ridiculed - no one is reprimanded.  Could it ever be a more blatant pack of lies?  How, exactly, would the cover-up of a massive, bloody coup differ from the error-ridden, nonsensical garbage which has been served up for us to swallow?  How could the recollections of these trained investigators be so utterly useless and fragmented on the very day after the killing - when their awareness and participation should have been at a highly piqued level?  Could they really be so incompetent and inept?  Could anyone?  If you trusted these people to watch your pet while you went on vacation - it would very likely be dead when you returned home.  That isn't a fair analogy, though - death seems to have been their specialty...

And, you are for all practical purposes 100% correct.

However, certain of the actor would not cooperate with Specter's scripted play.

Even though they had just completed a "rehearsal" prior to going on stage.

Therefore, the director invented:

1. "TIME OUT":

At any time that a witness was for the most part out of control and attempting to tell what he thought; saw; heard; etc. then one of basically three members of the WC would call "TIME OUT"!

This got so bad that in one case, Specter called a "Time Out" so that they could check and see at what time the Congressional Post Office closed.

When one reads the questioning/testimony of many key witnesses, in it's entire content and context, the usage of these "Time Out's" becomes quite obvious as a means of shutting the witnesses up.

Mr. Specter: Do you have any independent knowledge of which wrist and which thigh, aside from what you read in the medical reports themselves?

Mr. Kellerman: Yes, sir; I do, I talked to the Governor several times later, and it is the right wrist, sir.

Mr. Specter: It is the right wrist? (as if Specter did not know)

Mr. Kellerman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Specter: And which thigh? (again, as if Specter did not know)

Mr. Kellerman: It would be the left one.

Representative Ford:Is this a good point for a recess?

Mr. Specter: This is fine.

Representative Ford: We will take a 5-minute recess.

____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Kellerman: I may be a little--I am not ahead of myself in your investigation of this case, but I think with the evidence that you all have on the numbers, on the pieces of evidence that were found in the car, plus the fact that you, have a missile that was received from Dallas, from one of the stretchers, plus the fact of the missisle that, to my knowledge, hasn't been removed from Governor Connally--it may have, I don't know--count up to more than three to me gentlemen.

Mr. Specter: All right; fine, but focusing just a moment on the windshield in and of itself.

____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Kellerman wants to talk about bullets and wounds, and since he had interviewed Connally, there is little doubt that his input was of some importance.

However, Mr. Specter, who "wants the facts", has decided that we need to speak about the crack in the windshield.

2. "WHO'S ON FIRST":

Those who are of my age will most assuredly recognize the reference to this word game as played out by Abbot & Costello.

When one of the members of the WC (who was not in on the game) asked a significant question for which Specter & Company really did not want the answer revealed, then one of those members of the Commission who was in on the game would frequently ask another question before the witness could answer that question posed by the member who was attempting to find some facts.

Generally, when the witness finished answering the second question, Specter or one of the other's of Specter & Company, would then ask another question, and so on until the witness was taken far away from the subject of the first question which in many cases was never properly questioned.

Ford & Specter were, in many instances, like Abbot & Costello in this little scam.

In one instance, Dulles (who was not a player) was asking FBI Agent Frazier questions related to whether a bullet may have struck a tree limb of the live oak tree when Ford interjected:

Representative Ford: Mr. Chairman, may I return to questions that I was asking Mr. Frazier?

Mr. McCloy: (who was a player) Yes.

Thereafter, the entire line of questioning as relates to the potential of a bullet having struck a tree limb was ceased and the questioning taken in a different direction.

___________________________________________________________________

Again, when Dr. Perry was being questioned, Mr. Dulles brought up the question in regards to the finding of the bullet at Parkland Hospital.

Of course, and by his statement, Dr. Perry had little knowledge of this event and thereafter referenced a newspaper report of a bullet having been removed from the leg of JBC.

Thereafter, Specter went off into an entire scenario explaining how he had taken depositions and fully established that the bullet (CE399) was found on the stretcher of JBC, etc.

When Specter got through with his scenario to Dulles, then Ford jumped back in with:

Representative Ford: How long did it take you to go from where you were when the page came to get down to trauma room No. 1?

So, we have gone from Dulles asking questions related to CE399, to Specter now giving us the facts (according to Specter) and then Ford diverts us to some critical aspect regarding how fast Dr. Perry can travel from to the trauma room.

___________________________________________________________________

During the questioning of Dr. Clark, Dr. Clark had was branching into an explanation:

Dr. Clark: Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile----

Mr. Specter: May the record show that I interrrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing he concept of tangential and other types of striking.

____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Dulles: There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot or what is believed to be the report, explosion of the first shot and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind, what would you say, 2 to 1, 3 to 1?

(Discussion off the record)

Mr. Dulles: Is it possible that the assassin attempted to fire when the car was behind the tree or going into the tree, that that shot went astray, and that that accounts for, if there was a longer delay between one and two, that would account for it, and then the lethal shots were fired or the wound, the one shot that was fired that hit the two and then the lethal shot was fired immediately after. It is speculation.

NOTE:* Mr. Dulles was asking this question of FBI Agent Robert Frazier

Mr. McCloy: I think that must be speculation because there certainly is conflicting evidence as to the intervals between the first and the second shot and the second and the third shot.

Mr. Dulles: I think if you will read the testimony you will finddit at least 2 to 1 except for the people in the car.

Mr. McCloy: Maybe, but what weight do you give these, I don't know. I think that is quite possible that a bullet was deflected by that tree, but there is no evidence whatever of the bullet landing anywhere in the street or among the crowd.

____________________________________________________________________

So, Mr. McCloy has now entered the ring of presentation of what the evidence is, or is not, and exactly what did or did not happen.

Just perhaps we have identified another member of "Specter & Company", Inc.

____________________________________________________________________

As hopefully recalled, during presentation of how the Altered Survey Data was admitted into evidence, I stated that it was "no coincidence" That Earl Warren and Gerald Ford immediately departed after the "slight" "sleight-of-hand" trick in admitting the altered evidence.

Specter & Company, Inc. included:

1. Earl Warren to a limited extent, however, mostly on the bench.

2. John J. McCloy, acting as chairman and to a fair extent of playing time

3. Gerald Ford running interference.

4. Arlen Specter--Quarterback calling the plays.

Unfortunately for them, there were a few "busted plays" and mistakes were made.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Tom

With that very enlightening glimpse into your deepest thought processes, I feel finally that I am approaching at least the fringes of "clarity".

I must say however, that for the first time thru the swirling mist and fog of your revelations, you have finally said something which I anticipated.

Congratulations!

Charlie Black

Think Orchids!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I have been in agreement with Charles' assessment of your posts. I've found them to be logical and informative, and they build from one to the next. But I've had trouble keeping up with the attachments. Sometimes one appears and disappears before I've had a chance to see it--often within less than a 24-hour period--and at that point, I've lost whatever it was that your attachment was intended to illustrate.

I agree that the yet-to-be-developed website would answer most of my questions.

From my own assessment of the WC report, I agree that, whenever a witness appears to be straying into an area that might yield a little clarity, he/she is usually redirected to something unrelated or only peripherally related. At first, I just found that to be annoying; as it happened more and more, I began to understand that there must have been some areas of the investigation that Specter & Co. wanted the information to be "less-than-clear," to be a bit charitable to them.

Keep the info coming...and I'll do my best to keep up with the attachments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom -

Are you sure Dulles wasn't a "player"? He sure fools me. Also, from their brand of questioning - it seemed that some of the underling/attorney/examiners (who actually conducted many of the proceedings) were most likely "players". Like the fellow (his name escapes me) who so pointedly gave Jack White such a hard time in his appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I have been in agreement with Charles' assessment of your posts.  I've found them to be logical and informative, and they build from one to the next.  But I've had trouble keeping up with the attachments.  Sometimes one appears and disappears before I've had a chance to see it--often within less than a 24-hour period--and at that point, I've lost whatever it was that your attachment was intended to illustrate.

I agree that the yet-to-be-developed website would answer most of my questions.

From my own assessment of the WC report, I agree that, whenever a witness appears to be straying into an area that might yield a little clarity, he/she is usually redirected to something unrelated or only peripherally related.  At first, I just found that to be annoying; as it happened more and more, I began to understand that there must have been some areas of the investigation that Specter & Co. wanted the information to be "less-than-clear," to be a bit charitable to them.

Keep the info coming...and I'll do my best to keep up with the attachments!

Please accept my apology for those rapid response/removal of attachments.

As you may have observed, those of us who have served in the instructional field recognized the importance of "visual" presentation of many items.

There are those who are seeking certain aspects of what I possess in order to continue with their programs, and I am attempting to provide this more to their benefit than to everyone.

There is "much" to post, and one of these days I have to do something serious, such as mow the grass, etc.

Nevertheless, as stated, I will be more than glad to "repost" any attachment.

If someone wishes, start a "Tom-RePost" topic and ask there and I will be more than glad to dig for them.

It gets quite complicated with the number of attachements, attempting to reduce them in size to accomodate the limited attachment space, and yet keep them legible, and thereafter cover the many, many topics of concern.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom -

            Are you sure Dulles wasn't a "player"?  He sure fools me.  Also, from their brand of questioning - it seemed that some of the underling/attorney/examiners (who actually conducted many of the proceedings) were most likely "players".  Like the fellow (his name escapes me) who so pointedly gave Jack White such a hard time in his appearance.

From the entire questioning of witnesses, it appears that Dulles was merely "dull".

He asked questions in which Ford; Specter; & McCloy attempted to divert the subject.

There is nothing which I have found from the entire realm of questioning which would indicate that Dulles; Boggs; or Cooper were a part of it.

I would have to go back and check, but if recalled correctly, it was Cooper who once interjected something to the effect: "would you answer my question which I asked 10 minutes ago and still have not gotten an answer".

This was in response to the "who's on first" routine of Specter & Company in disruption of the witness testimony and diversion from the subject matter which the question addressed.

As you have stated, certain of the other "minor" players certainly appear to have gotten to "play" in the game.

Such is the case of the questioning of persons such as Altgens.

As one will notice, his questioning was only done after the WC had completed their report and the "draft" was submitted.

Then, Altgens was questioned without the potential of Dulles; Boggs; Cooper; etc; wanting any clarifications to where he was and what shot it was that he saw impact the head of JFK.

The "Survey Plat" which Mr. West generated for the WC is in fact 40-inches by 80-inches in size with a scale of 1-inch = 10 feet.

Had the WC truely wanted to know the position of Mr. Altgens (which rest assured they did not), then all that they had to do was open the survey plat, locate the yellow marks on the street curb which Mr. West clearly placed on the survey plat, then look at frame# 350 of the Z-film.

Personally, I see litttle difficulty in this, or for that matter, any confusion.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom wrote:

[...]

Had the WC truely wanted to know the position of Mr. Altgens (which rest assured they did not), then all that they had to do was open the survey plat, locate the yellow marks on the street curb which Mr. West clearly placed on the survey plat, then look at frame# 350 of the Z-film.

[...]

_________________

Thank you!

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom wrote:

[...]

Had the WC truely wanted to know the position of Mr. Altgens (which rest assured they did not), then all that they had to do was open the survey plat, locate the yellow marks on the street curb which Mr. West clearly placed on the survey plat, then look at frame# 350 of the Z-film.

[...]

_________________

Thank you!

David Healy

Sometimes I can avoid speaking in circles.

Tom

P.S. Might want to look at CE 900 which is the "comparison" photo of the Altgens 255 with the WC re-enactment.

I can not find my copy (found the negative) in which I sort of tore into this one as well.

Of note is the following:

1. In the Altgens photo, note that JFK is in direct alignment with the right edge of the concrete column in the background.

1.(a). Note that in the WC version, the JFK stand-in is virtually in the center of this concrete column.

2. In the Altgens photo, note that Kellerman is in virtual direct alignment with the center corner/edge of the concrete column in the background.

2. (a). Note that in the WC version, the Kellerman stand-in is well forward of this position.

3. Note the position of the tire of both vehicles in relationship to the stripe in the street.

4. MOST IMPORTANTLY:

Note in the Altgens photo that the letters "S" & "T" on the front of the TSDB are each partially showing through the fork in the Live Oak tree in the background, in front of the TSDB.

4. (a). Note that on the WC version, virtually none of the letter "T" is showing through the fork in this tree, and in fact virtually all of the letter "S" is present.

This clearly demonstrates that the WC photo was taken from a point which was clearly farther up the street towards the TSDB than was the Altgens photo.

This is why the WC did not want Altgens around, not to mention presentation of his photo.

This is another of those "slight" "sleight-of-hands", which although many have somewhat notices, passed it off as more incompentency on the part of the WC.

It was not.

All is for a reason.

Tom

P.S. Guess that the US Gov. should not have given me instruction in aerial imagery interpretation if they did not want me to look at photo's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...