Tim Gratz Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 We are all familiar with evidence indicating that there was more than one gunman in DP. But what evidence is there re who did it? Let me summarize and request your comments. We are all familiar with the litany of "means, motive and opportunity". Presumably, anyone with the motive to want Kennedy dead and with sufficient money to hire killers had all three. Motive alone cannot prove who did it, although it ought to be a factor to be considered. Are we left with the following? (a) Threats made before the act. ( Confessions made after the assassination. © Possible presence in DP: here I refer of course to the reported (but disputed by some, of course) presence of DGI agents in DP and the reported presence of CIA agents in DP. (d) A fingerprint of Mac Wallace, although it is still a subject of controversy. (e) The necessity that the conspirators have a relationship with Jack Ruby. Cleary, there were many made threats against JFK before the assassination which were not carried out. Equally clear not everyone who has "confessed" did it (Jim Files comes to mind). Is there are evidence, or category thereof, that I am missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I believe that the blatant cover up performed by the Warren Commission is, on its own, evidence of a conspiracy.One example will stand for the hundreds that could be be quoted by most Forum members. Whilst not publishing, or even alluding to JFK's Bethesda X-rays, the Commission, thoughtfully provided a 25 year old dental chart from Jack Ruby's mother, and an indepth analysis of three of Oswalds pubic hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 Respectfully, Stephen, I disagree. I do not believe the deficiencies of the WC prove either the existence of a conspiracy or who did it. Even if a member of the WC was a conspirator (which I highly doubt) how can you use the WC Report to prove which member it was? Remember: I am looking for evidence of WHO DID IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Remember: I am looking for evidence of WHO DID IT! ________________________________ Gratz, Here's a little clue for you-- we all are. P.S. I don't consider the fact that JFK just happened to be assassinated at the same time that Cubela was taking possession of a poison pen in Paris "evidence" of an unholy alliance between (1) "CASTRO," (2) "Trafficante," (3) "anti-Castro Cubans," and (4) "perhaps even renegade elements of the CIA" in the planning, implementation and (successful) cover-up of said assassination. ________________________________ Edited January 18, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Respectfully, Stephen, I disagree.I do not believe the deficiencies of the WC prove either the existence of a conspiracy or who did it. Even if a member of the WC was a conspirator (which I highly doubt) how can you use the WC Report to prove which member it was? Remember: I am looking for evidence of WHO DID IT! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not believe the deficiencies of the WC prove either the existence of a conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The manner in which the WC conducted their examination of evidence and witnesses presents a relatively clear pattern/plan to obfuscate evidence related to the assassination. All of which clearly establishes the "link in the chain" for circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, this intentional obfuscation of facts related to the assassination have absolutely no bearing on: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHO DID IT! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are two separate events, with two separative motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 We are all familiar with evidence indicating that there was more than one gunman in DP.But what evidence is there re who did it? Let me summarize and request your comments. We are all familiar with the litany of "means, motive and opportunity". Presumably, anyone with the motive to want Kennedy dead and with sufficient money to hire killers had all three. Motive alone cannot prove who did it, although it ought to be a factor to be considered. Are we left with the following? (a) Threats made before the act. ( Confessions made after the assassination. © Possible presence in DP: here I refer of course to the reported (but disputed by some, of course) presence of DGI agents in DP and the reported presence of CIA agents in DP. (d) A fingerprint of Mac Wallace, although it is still a subject of controversy. (e) The necessity that the conspirators have a relationship with Jack Ruby. Cleary, there were many made threats against JFK before the assassination which were not carried out. Equally clear not everyone who has "confessed" did it (Jim Files comes to mind). Is there are evidence, or category thereof, that I am missing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are all familiar with evidence indicating that there was more than one gunman in DP. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://ufologie.net/htm/pascagoula.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, and I am also relatively familiar with this evidence as well. The problem being, there is no FACTUAL evidence of either event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Respectfully, Stephen, I disagree.I do not believe the deficiencies of the WC prove either the existence of a conspiracy or who did it. Even if a member of the WC was a conspirator (which I highly doubt) how can you use the WC Report to prove which member it was? Remember: I am looking for evidence of WHO DID IT! Tim, apologies, I miss read your original post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 I notice there have b een no substantive replies to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I notice there have b een no substantive replies to my post. Tim, Just because the conspirators can't be identified with certainty doesn't detract from the historical analysis that a conspiracy ended the life of JFK. Are you now declaring there was no conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Tom's comments aside, I believe that within the strong evidence there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza are some indications of who employed these shooters. On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, where Jim Braden--a man with extensive connections to both the oil business and organized crime-- was arrested. On the other hand, we have the likely use of a silenced automatic weapon of small caliber; this would seem to indicate an AR-15/M-16, which at that time was not widely available. I believe its availability was limited to the Secret Service, Air Force, and Special Forces. If James Richards is correct about having a photo of Mitch Werbell holding an AR-15 in 1963, then we should include his circle as well. If Werbell had the mob contacts some believe he had, one could probably tie him to Ruby and Braden relatively easy. If one is inclined to go the other route, through the Special Forces in Laos and the Opium Trade etc, one can end up in the same place, albeit with more government involvement. In either scenario, Trafficante and Lansky are implicated on some level. Of course, this is not concrete, but it is a starting place. If somebody can figure out what Werbell was up to in 63, it might actually lead us someplace. Does Mr. Hemming have any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Tom's comments aside, I believe that within the strong evidence there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza are some indications of I believe that within the strong evidence . On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, where Jim Braden--a man with extensive connections to both the oil business and organized crime-- was arrested. On the other hand, we have the likely use of a silenced automatic weapon of small caliber; this would seem to indicate an AR-15/M-16, which at that time was not widely available. I believe its availability was limited to the Secret Service, Air Force, and Special Forces. If James Richards is correct about having a photo of Mitch Werbell holding an AR-15 in 1963, then we should include his circle as well. If Werbell had the mob contacts some believe he had, one could probably tie him to Ruby and Braden relatively easy. If one is inclined to go the other route, through the Special Forces in Laos and the Opium Trade etc, one can end up in the same place, albeit with more government involvement. In either scenario, Trafficante and Lansky are implicated on some level. Of course, this is not concrete, but it is a starting place. If somebody can figure out what Werbell was up to in 63, it might actually lead us someplace. Does Mr. Hemming have any ideas? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that within the strong evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only item of "strong evidence" that I am aware of is the "strong smell" which has come about as a result of the "smoke" & BS that has and continues to be generated in an attempt to send persons chasing the figment of someone's imagination. There is exactly ZERO forensic; ballistic; pathological; and/or physical evidence of other than a lone/single assassin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "probability" of a second shooter correlates exactly with the amount of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence to support such a hypothesis. Still at ZERO! And, anyone who continues to follow this path and lives that long, will be here (or on some other location) 40+ years from now, still "searching" for the facts and truth. Therefore, searching for a hypothetical "employer" of a mythological being, is not likely to place the assassination of JFK into it's proper perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Tom's comments aside, I believe that within the strong evidence there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza are some indications of I believe that within the strong evidence . On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, where Jim Braden--a man with extensive connections to both the oil business and organized crime-- was arrested. On the other hand, we have the likely use of a silenced automatic weapon of small caliber; this would seem to indicate an AR-15/M-16, which at that time was not widely available. I believe its availability was limited to the Secret Service, Air Force, and Special Forces. If James Richards is correct about having a photo of Mitch Werbell holding an AR-15 in 1963, then we should include his circle as well. If Werbell had the mob contacts some believe he had, one could probably tie him to Ruby and Braden relatively easy. If one is inclined to go the other route, through the Special Forces in Laos and the Opium Trade etc, one can end up in the same place, albeit with more government involvement. In either scenario, Trafficante and Lansky are implicated on some level. Of course, this is not concrete, but it is a starting place. If somebody can figure out what Werbell was up to in 63, it might actually lead us someplace. Does Mr. Hemming have any ideas? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that within the strong evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only item of "strong evidence" that I am aware of is the "strong smell" which has come about as a result of the "smoke" & BS that has and continues to be generated in an attempt to send persons chasing the figment of someone's imagination. There is exactly ZERO forensic; ballistic; pathological; and/or physical evidence of other than a lone/single assassin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "probability" of a second shooter correlates exactly with the amount of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence to support such a hypothesis. Still at ZERO! And, anyone who continues to follow this path and lives that long, will be here (or on some other location) 40+ years from now, still "searching" for the facts and truth. Therefore, searching for a hypothetical "employer" of a mythological being, is not likely to place the assassination of JFK into it's proper perspective. Let me guess, Tom. You haven't even bothered to read my presentation because you already know everything. I couldn't possibly have uncovered ANYTHING that would cast doubt on a lone assassin, right? The fact that the neutron activation analysis indicated the exact opposite of what Guinn said it did--meaningless, right? The fact that the trajectories of the Single Bullet Theory lead right through Kennedy's spine--meaningless, no value whatsover, right? The fact that the autopsy photos and x-rays give a strong indication--I believe it is conclusive--that Kennedy was struck twice in the skull---absolutely a waste of time, pointless, etc... And not to mention that almost half the earwitnesses at Houston and Elm, despite being told there were three shots, testified to hearing four.... This is all worthless as evidence, barely worth noting, right? Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The probability" of a second shooter correlates exactly with the amount of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence to support such a hypothesis. Still at ZERO! And, anyone who continues to follow this path and lives that long, will be here (or on some other location) 40+ years from now, still "searching" for the facts and truth. Therefore, searching for a hypothetical "employer" of a mythological being, is not likely to place the assassination of JFK into it's proper perspective. Let's go get 'em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Tom's comments aside, I believe that within the strong evidence there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza are some indications of I believe that within the strong evidence . On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, where Jim Braden--a man with extensive connections to both the oil business and organized crime-- was arrested. On the other hand, we have the likely use of a silenced automatic weapon of small caliber; this would seem to indicate an AR-15/M-16, which at that time was not widely available. I believe its availability was limited to the Secret Service, Air Force, and Special Forces. If James Richards is correct about having a photo of Mitch Werbell holding an AR-15 in 1963, then we should include his circle as well. If Werbell had the mob contacts some believe he had, one could probably tie him to Ruby and Braden relatively easy. If one is inclined to go the other route, through the Special Forces in Laos and the Opium Trade etc, one can end up in the same place, albeit with more government involvement. In either scenario, Trafficante and Lansky are implicated on some level. Of course, this is not concrete, but it is a starting place. If somebody can figure out what Werbell was up to in 63, it might actually lead us someplace. Does Mr. Hemming have any ideas? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that within the strong evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only item of "strong evidence" that I am aware of is the "strong smell" which has come about as a result of the "smoke" & BS that has and continues to be generated in an attempt to send persons chasing the figment of someone's imagination. There is exactly ZERO forensic; ballistic; pathological; and/or physical evidence of other than a lone/single assassin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "probability" of a second shooter correlates exactly with the amount of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence to support such a hypothesis. Still at ZERO! And, anyone who continues to follow this path and lives that long, will be here (or on some other location) 40+ years from now, still "searching" for the facts and truth. Therefore, searching for a hypothetical "employer" of a mythological being, is not likely to place the assassination of JFK into it's proper perspective. Let me guess, Tom. You haven't even bothered to read my presentation because you already know everything. I couldn't possibly have uncovered ANYTHING that would cast doubt on a lone assassin, right? The fact that the neutron activation analysis indicated the exact opposite of what Guinn said it did--meaningless, right? The fact that the trajectories of the Single Bullet Theory lead right through Kennedy's spine--meaningless, no value whatsover, right? The fact that the autopsy photos and x-rays give a strong indication--I believe it is conclusive--that Kennedy was struck twice in the skull---absolutely a waste of time, pointless, etc... And not to mention that almost half the earwitnesses at Houston and Elm, despite being told there were three shots, testified to hearing four.... This is all worthless as evidence, barely worth noting, right? Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me guess, Tom. You haven't even bothered to read my presentation because you already know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually! I did take the time to review your work. And, I found it to be one of the better articles written in regards to a continuation of the examination of the descrepancies related to the wounds suffered by JFK. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't possibly have uncovered ANYTHING that would cast doubt on a lone assassin, right? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is hardly any difficulty in demonstrating "doubt" at the WC version of the "Lone Assassin" tale/scenario. However, doubt that the WC version is not correct as presented, is not indicative to provide "doubt" of a lone assassin. It merely demonstrates a doubt that the WC was truthful with the american public. And, along these lines, I would "doubt" that you will find the correct answers you seek so long as you continue to attempt to interject into the equation the hypothetical & mythological being---"multiple assassin". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that the neutron activation analysis indicated the exact opposite of what Guinn said it did--meaningless, right? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although I would disagree with the term "exact opposite", the NAA is merely an "indicator", which of itself has no validity due to chain of possession of evidence and pieces of ballistic evidence that has disappeared from the National Archives. It would not and could not pass the "litmus" test of ever being accepted as factual evidence. P.S. Gallagher told me personally that they could not distinguish the samples which they tested. However, all that they had to do their work with was slide rules. Calculaters certainly make a big difference in that regards. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that the trajectories of the Single Bullet Theory lead right through Kennedy's spine--meaningless, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certainly nothing new as regards this revelation! And, since the "Magic Bullet" aka CE399 most assuredly did not accomplish what the WC has "sold", I find nothing new along that lines either. Still provides no evidence of "multiple assassins"! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that the autopsy photos and x-rays give a strong indication- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The autopsy x-rays and photo's are merely a developed image on either a strip of film or photographic paper. In that regard, they demonstrate exactly whatever it is that one thinks he sees in these items. Therefore, it is hardly a "fact", and merely stands as a subjective opinion based on one's perceptions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe it is conclusive--that Kennedy was struck twice in the skull--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At least on this point we have found "common ground", even if we disagree on the direction from which these shots were fired, and by whom they were fired. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that regard, I will have to check with my distant cousin "Tom Purvis", former Sheriff of Mobile County to find out if his daughter ever dated LHO's kin folk. http://www.mobileso.com/MobileSO/About/ Tom Purvis 1975 - 1995 Perhaps you are confusing it with LHO's trip to Mobile on his speaking engagement for his first cousin. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm On July 27, 1963, Lee was accompanied by Dutz and Lillian Murret (his aunt and uncle) and Marina to speak at the House of Studies at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. There he discussed his experiences in the Soviet Union before an audience of Jesuit seminarians. Among a variety of views he expressed was the following: Not sure whether a "Jesuit Priest" in training is or is not allowed to date! But I will, for the sake of clarification, ask Ann (Tom's Daughter) if she ever dated any of this bunch. Who knows?????????? Perhaps there is an even closer association between the "Purvis" & "Harvey" families than even I am aware. Thomas Harvey Purvis (Born in Mobile, AL, but from MS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) [---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that regard, I will have to check with my distant cousin "Tom Purvis", former Sheriff of Mobile County to find out if his daughter ever dated LHO's kin folk. http://www.mobileso.com/MobileSO/About/ Tom Purvis 1975 - 1995 Perhaps you are confusing it with LHO's trip to Mobile on his speaking engagement for his first cousin. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm On July 27, 1963, Lee was accompanied by Dutz and Lillian Murret (his aunt and uncle) and Marina to speak at the House of Studies at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. There he discussed his experiences in the Soviet Union before an audience of Jesuit seminarians. Among a variety of views he expressed was the following: Not sure whether a "Jesuit Priest" in training is or is not allowed to date! But I will, for the sake of clarification, ask Ann (Tom's Daughter) if she ever dated any of this bunch. Who knows?????????? Perhaps there is an even closer association between the "Purvis" & "Harvey" families than even I am aware. Thomas Harvey Purvis (Born in Mobile, AL, but from MS) Humor trumps sarcasm. Purvis wins this round. Edited January 17, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now