Houston Street/Elm Street

[Jim Root]

Bernice

Thanks for adding in the contempory Newspaper articles that were published in relationship to the Walker incident.

Most of the information you posted could be ascertained from the Police Report although it only identifies the bullet as steel jacketed from a high powered rifle. The report does not mention a 30.06 anywhere but does say, "the bullet of unknown caliber, steel jacket,...." The information from April 8 and 9 are in the report with some variation (no Cuban or dark complected man is mentioned, etc,). It is also pointed out that a church service had occured that night and many cars were departing at about the same time as the shooting but one in particular was specifically mentioned as having "sped away" shortly afer the shot was fired. (one might ask if it would be a normal response to speed away from the sound of a gun shot, but I digress).

Some of the additional information comes from Warren Commission interviews, in particular the one conducted with Edwin Walker (with no commissioners present I might add).

Marina Oswald did not come forward with any information about the Walker incident until after the story was reported in the German publication Deutsche National Zeitung on November 29, 1963. While Walker denied that he had provided the information to the newspaper he did admit that he gave two interviews to the newspaper of the morning of November 23, 1963, the first at exactly 7:00 am when he was called and questioned by a reporter.

I still ask how did this reporter obtain Walker's telephone number for his hotel room in Shreveport, LA within hours of the assassination of JFK and then produce a story, based upon that interview that was only later confirmed by Marina Oswald (and never denied since) that became a center piece of the Warren Commissions findings? And why was Walker, 31 years later, still telling the same story?

Jim Root

[John Dolva]

"the bullet of unknown caliber, steel jacket,...."

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/HSCA-Firearms.html

HSCA Vol II, pg 365-370 - HSCA Report of the Firearms Panel

(149) Was the CE 573 bullet recovered from the residence of General Walker fired from the CE 139 rifle? (149) CE 573 consists of a damaged 6.5-millimeter caliber full metal jacketed, lead core bullet. The weight of this exhibit is 147.1 grains. The class characteristics are four lands and four grooves, right twist. (See fig. 14.)

(150) The panel compared this bullet microscopically with the FBI's and its own test-fired bullets. Correspondence among the class characteristics was found on all bullets. No significant correspondence was, however, found among the individual identifying characteristics. Conversely, gross differences were not found.

(151) The panel concluded that because of the damage to CE 573 caused by impact and penetration, it could not be identified or eliminated as having been fired from the CE 139 rifle.

the bullet, CE 573 : http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...Misc_Ballistics (this bullet looks like copper to me)

Jim: "I still ask how did this reporter obtain Walker's telephone number for his hotel room in Shreveport, LA within hours of the assassination of JFK and then produce a story, based upon that interview that was only later confirmed by Marina Oswald (and never denied since) that became a center piece of the Warren Commissions findings? And why was Walker, 31 years later, still telling the same story?"

I agree these are very interesting/important questions.

Edited March 17, 2007 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jim Root

I acknowledge that I mistook your quote for that of Tom Purvis and for that one statement, I apologize to Tom and to the forum.

I do not acknowledge that "ON THE NIGHT OF the Walker Shooting Attempt" that it was reported that Walker was wounded, nor that it was proven that the Dealey Plaza MC bullets MATCH those of the Walker attempt.

I also acknowledge that there is a board of moderators which, should I be deemed guilty of doing or saying anything that is not in accord with forum rules, should point out to me my errors.

Jim Root's public admonishment of me is, I feel, not in accord with the procedures established by the forum moderating committee.

With the exception of my mistaking Jim Root's quote for Tom Purvis', I stand firmly behind every word that I have posted regarding Tom Purvis, as I believe them to be absolute truth.

I feel that the only breech of forum policy is Jim Root's unwarranted admonishment of me, and I would feel that the moderating committee should so rule.

Charlie Black

Tom

Any reasonable person who reads this entire thread knows that I did not "make up" your comment regarding Walkers hair, and several other of your allegations

With the exception of my mistaking Jim Root's quote for Tom Purvis', I stand firmly behind every word that I have posted regarding Tom Purvis, as I believe them to be absolute truth.

I feel that the only breech of forum policy is Jim Root's unwarranted admonishment of me, and I would feel that the moderating committee should so rule.

Although I can not speak for the "moderating committee". my ruling would remain that not only have you demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the factual evidence as regards the JFK assassination, but you also appear to suffer some form of dyslexia in which the postings of various members of this forum tend to jumble themselves in your mind.

It is thus little wonder that you can not understand the factual evidence.

Go play with your 12 (or whatever) guns Charles, and shoot another 200 rounds this week.

That fact alone should reveal much to many.

[Don Jeffries]

Charles,

I definitely think you know much more about this case than Tom Purvis ever will, although I suspect his bizarre, contradictory ramblings take a bit of time and dedication to craft. You are exactly right to bring up Marina Oswald; without her completely uncredible testimony, the authorities would never had tried to tie LHO to the attempt on Walker. But then again, perhaps Mr. Purvis has conducted experiments that indicate that someone of Oswald's size could indeed be kept inside a bathroom by someone Marina's size holding onto a doorknob. Maybe he has also demonstrated that firing at leaves in a park while walking a baby is actually a superior form of target practice. Anybody who can postulate that the official story about the assassination is correct, and that Oswald was the lone shooter, but that same record is also completely bogus, down to even an altered Zapruder film, can postulate anything, I suppose. Really, I don't understand how any good researcher can respect his doublethink-type of theory; where are Bill Miller and company, who jump all over Jack White for his alteration views, yet apparently are okay with someone who thinks the Zapruder film is altered AND that Oswald was the lone assassin? You are also correct, imho, to distrust anything that emanated from the Dallas Police, whose incompetence that weekend was mind-boggling. Even with all the success the conspirators enjoyed on November 22, 1963, we probably wouldn't be here discussing all this if the Dallas Police had managed to keep Oswald from getting shot with the 70 some officers detailed on Sunday morning to "protect" him. But then, maybe Tom has a theory about that, too. Perhaps I don't know anything about the assassination, either, and should consider that it is actually difficult to stop one man from shooting another if you only have 70 officers at your disposal. Maybe it would not be rational to completely surround the guy you're protecting, so that his front isn't left wide open. But then again, I'm the guy who takes the word of the Marine corps. when they rated Oswald a "rather poor shot," when Tom Purvis has somehow established that he was actually a great shot, even though his Marine scores indicate otherwise, fellow marines remembered otherwise, the fact there is no evidence that he ever practiced with that rifle or any other weapon indicate otherwise and the fact that the best shooters in the country couldn't duplicate his feat, under more favorable circumstances, indicate otherwise.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Charles,

I definitely think you know much more about this case than Tom Purvis ever will, although I suspect his bizarre, contradictory ramblings take a bit of time and dedication to craft. You are exactly right to bring up Marina Oswald; without her completely uncredible testimony, the authorities would never had tried to tie LHO to the attempt on Walker. But then again, perhaps Mr. Purvis has conducted experiments that indicate that someone of Oswald's size could indeed be kept inside a bathroom by someone Marina's size holding onto a doorknob. Maybe he has also demonstrated that firing at leaves in a park while walking a baby is actually a superior form of target practice. Anybody who can postulate that the official story about the assassination is correct, and that Oswald was the lone shooter, but that same record is also completely bogus, down to even an altered Zapruder film, can postulate anything, I suppose. Really, I don't understand how any good researcher can respect his doublethink-type of theory; where are Bill Miller and company, who jump all over Jack White for his alteration views, yet apparently are okay with someone who thinks the Zapruder film is altered AND that Oswald was the lone assassin? You are also correct, imho, to distrust anything that emanated from the Dallas Police, whose incompetence that weekend was mind-boggling. Even with all the success the conspirators enjoyed on November 22, 1963, we probably wouldn't be here discussing all this if the Dallas Police had managed to keep Oswald from getting shot with the 70 some officers detailed on Sunday morning to "protect" him. But then, maybe Tom has a theory about that, too. Perhaps I don't know anything about the assassination, either, and should consider that it is actually difficult to stop one man from shooting another if you only have 70 officers at your disposal. Maybe it would not be rational to completely surround the guy you're protecting, so that his front isn't left wide open. But then again, I'm the guy who takes the word of the Marine corps. when they rated Oswald a "rather poor shot," when Tom Purvis has somehow established that he was actually a great shot, even though his Marine scores indicate otherwise, fellow marines remembered otherwise, the fact there is no evidence that he ever practiced with that rifle or any other weapon indicate otherwise and the fact that the best shooters in the country couldn't duplicate his feat, under more favorable circumstances, indicate otherwise.

"I've been researching the JFK assassination since the mid-1970s, when I was a student volunteer with Mark Lane's group The Citizens Commission of Inquiry. I corresponded with and met legendary critic Harold Weisberg (dinner at his home was a very memorable evening for me), and wrote a front page article for Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" in 1984. I believe research should focus on the inactions of the Secret Service and think that the Cuban/Mafia connection is a smokescreen designed to take our attention away from the clear governmental involvement in this case."

And, in all this time and experience, it never dawned on you that the WC misrepresentation of the facts also included a complete misrepresentation in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and the fact that there was no shot that missed and Z312/313 WAS NOT the final shot in the shooting sequence?

Personally, I would refer to that more so as "being lost", as opposed to conducting research.

But then again, I'm the guy who takes the word of the Marine corps. when they rated Oswald a "rather poor shot,"

Shall I again waste additional air time in again posting exactly what the USMC had to say in regards to LHO's marksmanship ability?

Would you bother to read it?

Could you understand it were you to read it?

when Tom Purvis has somehow established that he was actually a great shot, even though his Marine scores indicate otherwise

Shall I again waste additional airtime in again posting that information relative to LHO's shooting ability in the upper echelons of EXPERT range when firing at targets at ranges of 200 meters and 300 meters, when firing from the fixed/stable position.

Would it serve any purpose to post that information relative to the fact that LHO entered the USMC shooting with this ability?

Would you bother to read it?

Could you understand it were you to read it?

the fact there is no evidence that he ever practiced with that rifle or any other weapon indicate otherwise

Would it serve any purpose to again post information relative to Homer Wood and his son Sterling Wood, who positively ID'ed LHO as the shooter whom they observed at the Sports Drome Rifle Range firing a 6.5mm Carcano rifle with excellent accuracy?

Would you bother to read it?

Could you understand it were you to read it?

and the fact that the best shooters in the country couldn't duplicate his feat, under more favorable circumstances, indicate otherwise.

Would it serve any purpose to again post that information relative to the fact that LHO/aka the shooter, had approximately 5.9 seconds of elapsed firing time between the first shot fired and the second shot fired which struck JFK in the head as seen in the Z-film at Z312/313.

Would you bother to read it?

Could you understand it were you to read it?

Lastly, since you claim to have been researching this matter since 1970, might I ask exactly how one feels, after some 37 years of research, to find that they were entirely mislead by the WC in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", as well as the fact that one quite obviously fell for and believed such nonsense?

I am again reminded of Forest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does"!

[Charles Black]

Tom Purvis posted> "not only have you demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the factual evidence...."

I feel that what I posted was the exact "factual evidence" which I would not even care to alter, and I could have added considerably more ! I am correct about Marina's lying testimony, I am correct about Walker not being wounded, I am correct, that the Walker bullet could not be scientifically linkned to the rifle alledged to belong to Oswald, and I am correct about the "multitude of lies" that Marina told after being in "long term protective custody".

I am also correct that there are several pieces of altered reports in the Dallas PD files.

Furthermore I would like to state, regarding Tom's

undisguised effort to place my "hobby" as a gun collector and frequent shooter at Gun Club events, in the category of some "wild anarchist" that has hordes of guns. My hobbies are fishing, shooting and sports. I also have probably a dozen or more rods and reels, as well as a host of other sporting equipment. I may even have put this in my posted "biography".

It isn't that "I don't know enough about this case" that bothers Tom and some others; it is that I have over the last nearly four decades, acquired a great deal of knowledge regarding "many" of the aspects of this case. That is why I am not "taken in" by off the wall comments, which seem to slip into forum thinking, that are for the most part BS !

It is to the detriment of some who believe in the single assassin theory, that I know very much about guns and ballistics and can therefore spot BS about guns, ballistics, ammunition and gunshot wounds. I also have had considerable military experience and realize that regardless of how many thousands of times that Purvis wants to disclaim it.....he cannot disclaim that by military records and Marine Corps standards, Oswald was a "poor shot", regardless of how many coerced statements that have been forced by investigatory inquisitions.

Even several Russian friends with whom Oswald hunted while in Russia, expressed that Oswald was such a poor shot that he could not hit a rabbit with a shotgun.

The "problems" which have plagued this particular thread and some earlier ones, has not been that "Charles Black does not factually know enough about this case", but rather that Charles knows too much about several apects of this case, involving in particular, weapons and the operations of the U.S. military. "I have been there and done that personally"! Neither I nor many of my friends have to read about it. Many of my associates have also "been there and done that" and are not dependent on third party BS.

The problem is that I know enough, that some self proclaimed experts become uncomfortable.

I stand firmly behind the words and thoughts that I have expressed in this thread.

I feel that after 43 years it is time to cut thru "pure speculation" of twig or branch theories, and insinuations of Oswalds cool headedness and great marksmanship. It is also time IMHO, to set aside those things that although they may not be able to be proved "impossible", are very highly improbable.

I have stated this before. I feel that this research and investigation has been purposely sidelined by the tangental segments of evidence and minutae, which is all a part of "mind control".

I openly state that I personally feel that Tom Purvis is a type of Pied Piper that could drown the entire mass. Perhaps semi-factoids should be set aside and a long hard common sense look should be taken at what real evidence that there is, in regard to how many tangents have been followed.

Many of you would be SHOCKED if you truly realized how much space and time that has been consumed on this forum by Tom Purvis and a few others, with their individual twig and branch theories, and Dealey Plaza 1963 land surveys. They have only concealed the truth....as they have so intended.

Charlie Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom Purvis posted> "not only have you demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the factual evidence...."

I feel that what I posted was the exact "factual evidence" which I would not even care to alter, and I could have added considerably more ! I am correct about Marina's lying testimony, I am correct about Walker not being wounded, I am correct, that the Walker bullet could not be scientifically linkned to the rifle alledged to belong to Oswald, and I am correct about the "multitude of lies" that Marina told after being in "long term protective custody".

I am also correct that there are several pieces of altered reports in the Dallas PD files.

Furthermore I would like to state, regarding Tom's

undisguised effort to place my "hobby" as a gun collector and frequent shooter at Gun Club events, in the category of some "wild anarchist" that has hordes of guns. My hobbies are fishing, shooting and sports. I also have probably a dozen or more rods and reels, as well as a host of other sporting equipment. I may even have put this in my posted "biography".

It isn't that "I don't know enough about this case" that bothers Tom and some others; it is that I have over the last nearly four decades, acquired a great deal of knowledge regarding "many" of the aspects of this case. That is why I am not "taken in" by off the wall comments, which seem to slip into forum thinking, that are for the most part BS !

It is to the detriment of some who believe in the single assassin theory, that I know very much about guns and ballistics and can therefore spot BS about guns, ballistics, ammunition and gunshot wounds. I also have had considerable military experience and realize that regardless of how many thousands of times that Purvis wants to disclaim it.....he cannot disclaim that by military records and Marine Corps standards, Oswald was a "poor shot", regardless of how many coerced statements that have been forced by investigatory inquisitions.

Even several Russian friends with whom Oswald hunted while in Russia, expressed that Oswald was such a poor shot that he could not hit a rabbit with a shotgun.

The "problems" which have plagued this particular thread and some earlier ones, has not been that "Charles Black does not factually know enough about this case", but rather that Charles knows too much about several apects of this case, involving in particular, weapons and the operations of the U.S. military. "I have been there and done that personally"! Neither I nor many of my friends have to read about it. Many of my associates have also "been there and done that" and are not dependent on third party BS.

The problem is that I know enough, that some self proclaimed experts become uncomfortable.

I stand firmly behind the words and thoughts that I have expressed in this thread.

I feel that after 43 years it is time to cut thru "pure speculation" of twig or branch theories, and insinuations of Oswalds cool headedness and great marksmanship. It is also time IMHO, to set aside those things that although they may not be able to be proved "impossible", are very highly improbable.

I have stated this before. I feel that this research and investigation has been purposely sidelined by the tangental segments of evidence and minutae, which is all a part of "mind control".

I openly state that I personally feel that Tom Purvis is a type of Pied Piper that could drown the entire mass. Perhaps semi-factoids should be set aside and a long hard common sense look should be taken at what real evidence that there is, in regard to how many tangents have been followed.

Many of you would be SHOCKED if you truly realized how much space and time that has been consumed on this forum by Tom Purvis and a few others, with their individual twig and branch theories, and Dealey Plaza 1963 land surveys. They have only concealed the truth....as they have so intended.

Charlie Black

They have only concealed the truth....as they have so intended.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...&docId=4272

Charles! The "truth" as you claim, has always remained concealed from those who can not understand it, or else expend little or no effort in their search for it.