Houston Street/Elm Street

[Charles 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. You are becoming trapped, as you have dug so many holes around what I think to be your ridiclous position, that you cannot dig out of the current hole, without stumbling into another.

You are not digging your way into daylight, but into a bottomless pit.

And yes I stand firmly behind my position that you intentionally misquote in an attempt to deceive. You attempt to misrepresent the difficulty of the "snipers lair shot". You attempt to misrepresent Oswalds proficiency with a rifle. Your Twig/Branch/Tree representation, can in no way be substantiated in this case. You have stated that your twig would separate and remove the bullets full metal jacket, while in other posts you have attested to how many inches of wood that a Carcano FMJ bullet could penetrate and still remain intact.

You are in fact a living, walking, talking, contradiction of "Your Own Statements".

I too understand weapons.....own over a dozen of them...belong to a shooting club in which I fire weekly an average of 200 rounds....I understand ballistics, and on several occassions I have fired a Manlicher Carcano rifle (tho I don't personally own one). I personally know that the shots which we discuss would be extremely difficult, and I could not make them...even tho I am a good shot, and while in the military qualified "expert" with two different weapons.

I therefore feel quite qualified to state without reservation, that I am not one to whom you can lie or impress with your knowledge of weapons, ballistics or shooting. I shall state further that I feel your attempts to be nefarious, when you "spew" to those who do not know better, the Tom Purvis answers to shooting, weapons and ballistics, which stand on NO solid ground.

Yet you are "bold" enough to make THOUSANDS of posts on matters which exist only in "YOUR" mind.

You have also on appx. dozens of ocassions, not implied, but flatly stated that Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Tom ! You don't need me on which to place your blame.....your theories evaporate of their own merit (or lack of).

I am not attempting to censor you, but I am making an attempt to inform those who are less familiar with this subject, to not in any way consider you to be an expert on this subject because you have chosen to pose yourself in your personal portrait (which is approaching its 40th Birthday) in what appears to be a Special Forces Beret. That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.

I would not have brought this matter up, but those thousands of disingenious posts have finally demanded it. You should not be attempting to deceive others by pretending to be something which you are not !

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Doule post..Sorry....Spare yourself

And yes I stand firmly behind my position that you intentionally misquote in an attempt to deceive. You attempt to misrepresent the difficulty of the "snipers lair shot". You attempt to misrepresent Oswalds proficiency with a rifle. Your Twig/Branch/Tree representation, can in no way be substantiated in this case. You have stated that your twig would separate and remove the bullets full metal jacket, while in other posts you have attested to how many inches of wood that a Carcano FMJ bullet could penetrate and still remain intact.

You are in fact a living, walking, talking, contradiction of "Your Own Statements".

I too understand weapons.....own over a dozen of them...belong to a shooting club in which I fire weekly an average of 200 rounds....I understand ballistics, and on several occassions I have fired a Manlicher Carcano rifle (tho I don't personally own one). I personally know that the shots which we discuss would be extremely difficult, and I could not make them...even tho I am a good shot, and while in the military qualified "expert" with two different weapons.

I therefore feel quite qualified to state without reservation, that I am not one to whom you can lie or impress with your knowledge of weapons, ballistics or shooting. I shall state further that I feel your attempts to be nefarious, when you "spew" to those who do not know better, the Tom Purvis answers to shooting, weapons and ballistics, which stand on NO solid ground.

Yet you are "bold" enough to make THOUSANDS of posts on matters which exist only in "YOUR" mind.

You have also on appx. dozens of ocassions, not implied, but flatly stated that Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Tom ! You don't need me on which to place your blame.....your theories evaporate of their own merit (or lack of).

I am not attempting to censor you, but I am making an attempt to inform those who are less familiar with this subject, to not in any way consider you to be an expert on this subject because you have chosen to pose yourself in your personal portrait (which is approaching its 40th Birthday) in what appears to be a Special Forces Beret. That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.

I would not have brought this matter up, but those thousands of disingenious posts have finally demanded it. You should not be attempting to deceive others by pretending to be something which you are not !

Charlie Black

Edited March 16, 2007 by Charles Black

[Don Jeffries]

Charles,

Right on! I think you spoke the thoughts of many here with your post.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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. You are becoming trapped, as you have dug so many holes around what I think to be your ridiclous position, that you cannot dig out of the current hole, without stumbling into another.

You are not digging your way into daylight, but into a bottomless pit.

And yes I stand firmly behind my position that you intentionally misquote in an attempt to deceive. You attempt to misrepresent the difficulty of the "snipers lair shot". You attempt to misrepresent Oswalds proficiency with a rifle. Your Twig/Branch/Tree representation, can in no way be substantiated in this case. You have stated that your twig would separate and remove the bullets full metal jacket, while in other posts you have attested to how many inches of wood that a Carcano FMJ bullet could penetrate and still remain intact.

You are in fact a living, walking, talking, contradiction of "Your Own Statements".

I too understand weapons.....own over a dozen of them...belong to a shooting club in which I fire weekly an average of 200 rounds....I understand ballistics, and on several occassions I have fired a Manlicher Carcano rifle (tho I don't personally own one). I personally know that the shots which we discuss would be extremely difficult, and I could not make them...even tho I am a good shot, and while in the military qualified "expert" with two different weapons.

I therefore feel quite qualified to state without reservation, that I am not one to whom you can lie or impress with your knowledge of weapons, ballistics or shooting. I shall state further that I feel your attempts to be nefarious, when you "spew" to those who do not know better, the Tom Purvis answers to shooting, weapons and ballistics, which stand on NO solid ground.

Yet you are "bold" enough to make THOUSANDS of posts on matters which exist only in "YOUR" mind.

You have also on appx. dozens of ocassions, not implied, but flatly stated that Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Tom ! You don't need me on which to place your blame.....your theories evaporate of their own merit (or lack of).

I am not attempting to censor you, but I am making an attempt to inform those who are less familiar with this subject, to not in any way consider you to be an expert on this subject because you have chosen to pose yourself in your personal portrait (which is approaching its 40th Birthday) in what appears to be a Special Forces Beret. That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.

I would not have brought this matter up, but those thousands of disingenious posts have finally demanded it. You should not be attempting to deceive others by pretending to be something which you are not !

Charlie Black

Any reasonable person who reads this entire thread knows that I did not "make up" your comment regarding Walkers hair

Other than having to type it yourself, could you locate and provide the reference evidence for that Charles?

that you cannot dig out of the current hole, without stumbling into another.

Quite unlike anything which you have to offer Charles, 90+% of everything related to the forensic; ballistics; pathological; and physical evidence was long ago examined by truly qualified EXPERTS in their specific fields of endeavor.

Since they all came to the same conclusions, then I am in a hole with some good and qualified company.

You attempt to misrepresent the difficulty of the "snipers lair shot"

Actually, shall we refer to it as presentation of some of the simple facts, and thus allow others to judge for themselves.

And such garbage as you have come up with in regards to the pipes in the way, etc;, clearly demonstrate that either you have never been to the Sixth Floor Museum, or else you paid little or no attention to that portion which is glassed off and from where the shots were fired.

Why not again make an attempt to suprise us and review the evidence as to exactly where and how the boxes were actually stacked at the window edge, as opposed to reading and repeating, not unlike a parrot, the same old garbage as regards the pipes located up against the wall being a hinderance.

You attempt to misrepresent Oswalds proficiency with a rifle.

It is hardly my problem if the shooting/range fire record of LHO is above your level of understanding as relates to the shooting ability of LHO.

Again, why not suprise us all, copy the actual record of those qualification rounds from 200 meters to 300 meters when firing from a fixed/stable firing platform, to any QUALIFIED person for review and ask them about LHO, ability to shoot accurately at targerts of less than 100 yards.

It is called "Research"!, and had LHO been firing on a U.S. Army Qualification Range, then he would have qualified in the upper ranges of EXPERT.

I recognize that the facts tend to confuse you Charles, but why not at least make an attempt to get an opinion from someone who understands the significance of the range fire record of LHO.

I too understand weapons.....own over a dozen of them...belong to a shooting club in which I fire weekly an average of 200 rounds....I understand ballistics

Good for you. Glad that you have demonstrated, by your own statements, why there should be laws for gun control.

Personally, I own a .410/.22 convertable single shot which is used for snakes down at the pond, as well as two pistols for self-home protection, and the research Carcano's.

And although I recognize the necessity for owning weapons for either self-protection or for hunting food, other than that, I personally do not need to either own a dozen weapons or shoot 200 rounds per week in order to prove something to myself about my manliness.

Personally, I would prefer to expend the funds on additional flowers for the yard, or bigger cages for Barbara's flop-eared bunnies to run free in.

Therefore, you may have impressed yourself by owning a dozen guns and shooting 200 rounds per week, but rest assured that it does not impress me.

I personally know that the shots which we discuss would be extremely difficult, and I could not make them...even tho I am a good shot, and while in the military qualified "expert" with two different weapons.

Perhaps you should "up" your 200-round per week pastime to 400 rounds per week or so. Then, with some additional practice, perhaps you just may be up to LHO's marksmanship ability.*

*Note: The shooting scenario, as presented by the WC, will always be "rushed". But then again, exactly what idiot is it that believed that the WC told us the truth about the shooting scenario and "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"?

Certainly was not, and never was me!

I shall state further that I feel your attempts to be nefarious, when you "spew" to those who do not know better, the Tom Purvis answers to shooting, weapons and ballistics, which stand on NO solid ground.

In which, those such as yourself, will always continue to believe. And of course, which I personally could care less.

However, the information is not being provided for those who clearly demonstrate a complete ineptness at evaluation of factual information.

It is, for the record, being provided to/for those few who visit here, and understand the value of seperate and verifiable, independent research.

Whether it be for the background of LHO, or the lack of difficulty for the three shots fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB.

You have also on appx. dozens of ocassions, not implied, but flatly stated that Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Although again another slight misrepresentation of the facts, let me nevertheless set the record fully correct, as well as give you the recognition of ultimately being correct in something.

Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Thomas H. Purvis

There now, why not evaluate a few of the facts, find a few qualified EXPERTS in marksmanship as well as ballistics, and present them with what are the actual facts.

Then, you can judge for yourself exactly what it is that you either know, or do not know in regards to shooting or ballistics.

Tom ! You don't need me on which to place your blame.....your theories evaporate of their own merit (or lack of).

Although I would fail to understand exactly what "blame" you refer to, perhaps a good look in the mirror may reflect on what this is about.

First off, one must actually have studied the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, in order to understand it.

Which it would appear, eliminates you from any contention in that race.

Secondly, since we are obviously close to the same age, then you have lived long enough to have, had you actually wanted some answers, located and spoken with such as the autopsy surgeons; FBI Ballistics and laboratory personnel; Dr's & Nurse personnel of Parkland Hospital; Mr. Robert West of Dallas; Ballistics Experts from other than the FBI; forensic EXPERTS other than the autopsy surgeons; etc; etc; etc.

You see Charles, not unlike most things in life, if one expects answers which make any sense, then one must know the proper questions to ask.

And, in order to actually know the proper questions which need to be answered, one must study and understand the subject matter.

Which you quite obviously have not done.

am not attempting to censor you, but I am making an attempt to inform those who are less familiar with this subject, to not in any way consider you to be an expert on this subject because you have chosen to pose yourself in your personal portrait (which is approaching its 40th Birthday) in what appears to be a Special Forces Beret. That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.

It would be hoped that you would at least "censor" yourself, and thus allow those who have an actual interest in the facts to get on in life with attempting to unravel the few remaining elements which are not/have not been revealed in regards to LHO and exactly who/what was behind the assassination of JFK.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=700

It is hardly my problem if you are unwilling to present to this forum all of your great qualifications which may provide some insight into exactly how it would be that you know so much as regards assassination techniques as well as clandestine/covert operations.

And in regards to your "Rifle Range" expertise, you most certainly are not the first "non-researcher" from this forum who has had to tuck his tail between his legs and run after a few truly qualified EXPERTS have been brought on board to discuss the Carcano and it's capability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8580&st=45

http://www.midwesttraininggroup.net/instructors.htm

Massad Ayoob

Massad Ayoob is presently Director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI), training hundreds of civilians and Law Enforcement personnel each year in judicious use of deadly force, armed and unarmed combat, threat management and officer survival. Additionally, he coordinates a dozen LFI staff instructors and assistant instructors in four countries. He appears selectively as a court accepted expert witness in the areas of dynamics of violent encounters, weapons and weapons / self-defense / police training, and survival and threat management tactics and principles.

Ayoob is a part-time/fully sworn police officer with the rank of Captain. He has authored over one thousand published articles on weapons and self-defense, and several authoritative books. Articles or stories about Massad Ayoob have appeared in such mainstream media as the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, LA Times, PBS Frontline, ABCs 20/20, Boston Herald, and many more too numerous to mention.

Ayoob's shooting skills have won him more local, state, regional, and national titles than can be mentioned here. He is one of the first to have earned a four-gun Master rating in IDPA. He is one of those rare individuals who have the ability to translate his own skills to others. A powerful speaker, superb motivator, and skilled communicator, Massad Ayoob is recognized as one of the best firearms instructors in the country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not suprise us all and see what Ayoob has to say on the subject matter of the Carcano.

(or for that matter, any other truly QUALIFIED individual)

Then, one just may be able to determine who, amongst the two of us, knows little of what he speaks.

Thus, let me, if I may, quote from your own personal statement in your own biographical information:

As I was fishing earlier this morning, my mind asked myself a question. That question was "What do I factually know about the assassination of JFK?"

Myself answered..."Very Little".

Someone once stated that it was a wise man who recognized his limitations, and stuck within them!

So, in that regards, you have at least been correct in something again, as well as demonstrating you wisdom.

(at least within your biographical data)

That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.[/b]

In life and old age, it is far better to look back and see a "has been", then to look back and see a "never was", or "couldn't be".

In event you dislike the "old" photo which John Simkin chose from amont the three sent:

(HALO Jump photo made by SFG Joe Gonzales of the US Army Sport Parachute Team "The Golden Knights")

(Photo of myself and Apollo XIII Commander James Lovel during promo film for President's Council on Physical Fitness)

(Obvijously "altered" photo of me at a younger age while serving in the 3rd SF Group at Bragg)

Then, here is another of those "been there/done that" photo's from when I grew older.

Some of us stopped playing with guns long ago and decided to do something worthwhile in our few remaining years.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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. You are becoming trapped, as you have dug so many holes around what I think to be your ridiclous position, that you cannot dig out of the current hole, without stumbling into another.

You are not digging your way into daylight, but into a bottomless pit.

And yes I stand firmly behind my position that you intentionally misquote in an attempt to deceive. You attempt to misrepresent the difficulty of the "snipers lair shot". You attempt to misrepresent Oswalds proficiency with a rifle. Your Twig/Branch/Tree representation, can in no way be substantiated in this case. You have stated that your twig would separate and remove the bullets full metal jacket, while in other posts you have attested to how many inches of wood that a Carcano FMJ bullet could penetrate and still remain intact.

You are in fact a living, walking, talking, contradiction of "Your Own Statements".

I too understand weapons.....own over a dozen of them...belong to a shooting club in which I fire weekly an average of 200 rounds....I understand ballistics, and on several occassions I have fired a Manlicher Carcano rifle (tho I don't personally own one). I personally know that the shots which we discuss would be extremely difficult, and I could not make them...even tho I am a good shot, and while in the military qualified "expert" with two different weapons.

I therefore feel quite qualified to state without reservation, that I am not one to whom you can lie or impress with your knowledge of weapons, ballistics or shooting. I shall state further that I feel your attempts to be nefarious, when you "spew" to those who do not know better, the Tom Purvis answers to shooting, weapons and ballistics, which stand on NO solid ground.

Yet you are "bold" enough to make THOUSANDS of posts on matters which exist only in "YOUR" mind.

You have also on appx. dozens of ocassions, not implied, but flatly stated that Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Tom ! You don't need me on which to place your blame.....your theories evaporate of their own merit (or lack of).

I am not attempting to censor you, but I am making an attempt to inform those who are less familiar with this subject, to not in any way consider you to be an expert on this subject because you have chosen to pose yourself in your personal portrait (which is approaching its 40th Birthday) in what appears to be a Special Forces Beret. That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.

I would not have brought this matter up, but those thousands of disingenious posts have finally demanded it. You should not be attempting to deceive others by pretending to be something which you are not !

Charlie Black

Any reasonable person who reads this entire thread knows that I did not "make up" your comment regarding Walkers hair

Other than having to type it yourself, could you locate and provide the reference evidence for that Charles?

that you cannot dig out of the current hole, without stumbling into another.

Quite unlike anything which you have to offer Charles, 90+% of everything related to the forensic; ballistics; pathological; and physical evidence was long ago examined by truly qualified EXPERTS in their specific fields of endeavor.

Since they all came to the same conclusions, then I am in a hole with some good and qualified company.

You attempt to misrepresent the difficulty of the "snipers lair shot"

Actually, shall we refer to it as presentation of some of the simple facts, and thus allow others to judge for themselves.

And such garbage as you have come up with in regards to the pipes in the way, etc;, clearly demonstrate that either you have never been to the Sixth Floor Museum, or else you paid little or no attention to that portion which is glassed off and from where the shots were fired.

Why not again make an attempt to suprise us and review the evidence as to exactly where and how the boxes were actually stacked at the window edge, as opposed to reading and repeating, not unlike a parrot, the same old garbage as regards the pipes located up against the wall being a hinderance.

You attempt to misrepresent Oswalds proficiency with a rifle.

It is hardly my problem if the shooting/range fire record of LHO is above your level of understanding as relates to the shooting ability of LHO.

Again, why not suprise us all, copy the actual record of those qualification rounds from 200 meters to 300 meters when firing from a fixed/stable firing platform, to any QUALIFIED person for review and ask them about LHO, ability to shoot accurately at targerts of less than 100 yards.

It is called "Research"!, and had LHO been firing on a U.S. Army Qualification Range, then he would have qualified in the upper ranges of EXPERT.

I recognize that the facts tend to confuse you Charles, but why not at least make an attempt to get an opinion from someone who understands the significance of the range fire record of LHO.

I too understand weapons.....own over a dozen of them...belong to a shooting club in which I fire weekly an average of 200 rounds....I understand ballistics

Good for you. Glad that you have demonstrated, by your own statements, why there should be laws for gun control.

Personally, I own a .410/.22 convertable single shot which is used for snakes down at the pond, as well as two pistols for self-home protection, and the research Carcano's.

And although I recognize the necessity for owning weapons for either self-protection or for hunting food, other than that, I personally do not need to either own a dozen weapons or shoot 200 rounds per week in order to prove something to myself about my manliness.

Personally, I would prefer to expend the funds on additional flowers for the yard, or bigger cages for Barbara's flop-eared bunnies to run free in.

Therefore, you may have impressed yourself by owning a dozen guns and shooting 200 rounds per week, but rest assured that it does not impress me.

I personally know that the shots which we discuss would be extremely difficult, and I could not make them...even tho I am a good shot, and while in the military qualified "expert" with two different weapons.

Perhaps you should "up" your 200-round per week pastime to 400 rounds per week or so. Then, with some additional practice, perhaps you just may be up to LHO's marksmanship ability.*

*Note: The shooting scenario, as presented by the WC, will always be "rushed". But then again, exactly what idiot is it that believed that the WC told us the truth about the shooting scenario and "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"?

Certainly was not, and never was me!

I shall state further that I feel your attempts to be nefarious, when you "spew" to those who do not know better, the Tom Purvis answers to shooting, weapons and ballistics, which stand on NO solid ground.

In which, those such as yourself, will always continue to believe. And of course, which I personally could care less.

However, the information is not being provided for those who clearly demonstrate a complete ineptness at evaluation of factual information.

It is, for the record, being provided to/for those few who visit here, and understand the value of seperate and verifiable, independent research.

Whether it be for the background of LHO, or the lack of difficulty for the three shots fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB.

You have also on appx. dozens of ocassions, not implied, but flatly stated that Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Although again another slight misrepresentation of the facts, let me nevertheless set the record fully correct, as well as give you the recognition of ultimately being correct in something.

Charles Black knows nothing about this case or the subject matter of shooting or ballistics.

Thomas H. Purvis

There now, why not evaluate a few of the facts, find a few qualified EXPERTS in marksmanship as well as ballistics, and present them with what are the actual facts.

Then, you can judge for yourself exactly what it is that you either know, or do not know in regards to shooting or ballistics.

Tom ! You don't need me on which to place your blame.....your theories evaporate of their own merit (or lack of).

Although I would fail to understand exactly what "blame" you refer to, perhaps a good look in the mirror may reflect on what this is about.

First off, one must actually have studied the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, in order to understand it.

Which it would appear, eliminates you from any contention in that race.

Secondly, since we are obviously close to the same age, then you have lived long enough to have, had you actually wanted some answers, located and spoken with such as the autopsy surgeons; FBI Ballistics and laboratory personnel; Dr's & Nurse personnel of Parkland Hospital; Mr. Robert West of Dallas; Ballistics Experts from other than the FBI; forensic EXPERTS other than the autopsy surgeons; etc; etc; etc.

You see Charles, not unlike most things in life, if one expects answers which make any sense, then one must know the proper questions to ask.

And, in order to actually know the proper questions which need to be answered, one must study and understand the subject matter.

Which you quite obviously have not done.

am not attempting to censor you, but I am making an attempt to inform those who are less familiar with this subject, to not in any way consider you to be an expert on this subject because you have chosen to pose yourself in your personal portrait (which is approaching its 40th Birthday) in what appears to be a Special Forces Beret. That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.

It would be hoped that you would at least "censor" yourself, and thus allow those who have an actual interest in the facts to get on in life with attempting to unravel the few remaining elements which are not/have not been revealed in regards to LHO and exactly who/what was behind the assassination of JFK.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=700

It is hardly my problem if you are unwilling to present to this forum all of your great qualifications which may provide some insight into exactly how it would be that you know so much as regards assassination techniques as well as clandestine/covert operations.

And in regards to your "Rifle Range" expertise, you most certainly are not the first "non-researcher" from this forum who has had to tuck his tail between his legs and run after a few truly qualified EXPERTS have been brought on board to discuss the Carcano and it's capability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8580&st=45

http://www.midwesttraininggroup.net/instructors.htm

Massad Ayoob

Massad Ayoob is presently Director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI), training hundreds of civilians and Law Enforcement personnel each year in judicious use of deadly force, armed and unarmed combat, threat management and officer survival. Additionally, he coordinates a dozen LFI staff instructors and assistant instructors in four countries. He appears selectively as a court accepted expert witness in the areas of dynamics of violent encounters, weapons and weapons / self-defense / police training, and survival and threat management tactics and principles.

Ayoob is a part-time/fully sworn police officer with the rank of Captain. He has authored over one thousand published articles on weapons and self-defense, and several authoritative books. Articles or stories about Massad Ayoob have appeared in such mainstream media as the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, LA Times, PBS Frontline, ABCs 20/20, Boston Herald, and many more too numerous to mention.

Ayoob's shooting skills have won him more local, state, regional, and national titles than can be mentioned here. He is one of the first to have earned a four-gun Master rating in IDPA. He is one of those rare individuals who have the ability to translate his own skills to others. A powerful speaker, superb motivator, and skilled communicator, Massad Ayoob is recognized as one of the best firearms instructors in the country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not suprise us all and see what Ayoob has to say on the subject matter of the Carcano.

(or for that matter, any other truly QUALIFIED individual)

Then, one just may be able to determine who, amongst the two of us, knows little of what he speaks.

Thus, let me, if I may, quote from your own personal statement in your own biographical information:

As I was fishing earlier this morning, my mind asked myself a question. That question was "What do I factually know about the assassination of JFK?"

Myself answered..."Very Little".

Someone once stated that it was a wise man who recognized his limitations, and stuck within them!

So, in that regards, you have at least been correct in something again, as well as demonstrating you wisdom.

(at least within your biographical data)

That attempt to portray yourself as something which you are not, is quite disingenious within itself, and should be recognized as such by other members of this forum.[/b]

In life and old age, it is far better to look back and see a "has been", then to look back and see a "never was", or "couldn't be".

In event you dislike the "old" photo which John Simkin chose from amont the three sent:

(HALO Jump photo made by SFG Joe Gonzales of the US Army Sport Parachute Team "The Golden Knights")

(Photo of myself and Apollo XIII Commander James Lovel during promo film for President's Council on Physical Fitness)

(Obvijously "altered" photo of me at a younger age while serving in the 3rd SF Group at Bragg)

Then, here is another of those "been there/done that" photo's from when I grew older.

Some of us stopped playing with guns long ago and decided to do something worthwhile in our few remaining years.

[Charles Black]

Tom Purvis

I am certain that I am not the only person on this forum whom you bored with your last two posts (maybe your last 2,000). I cannot be certain of what you said, but your endless nonsensical rhetoric, forced me to not finish their reading.

Tom, in my not so humble opinion, I feel that you are completely phony and not mentally capable of engaging me in any forthright manner. Your 40 year old photo SAYS IT ALL ! You must have no idea of what that little picture says about you and your character, or lack thereof.

Charlie Black

[Mark Knight]

I know it's not my place to say it, but I shall anyway:

Whenever one of these discussions deteriorates into a "flame war," who wins?

Certainly not the truth.

Nor the exchange of ideas.

Because of such crapola on the threads regarding Z-film alteration, I find myself avoiding those threads like the plague. But by doing so, in the event someone DOES post something that reveals some knowledge or facts not previously commonly known, I miss out on that information. My time on the Internet does have limits; I would prefer to spend it learning something new, or learning why something I previously believed to be true cannot be supported by the facts.

I would prefer NOT to spend my time in the midst of some schoolyard brawl which would be better served, IMHO, by exchanging email addresses and flinging excrement at one another directly, rather than clogging up a valuable discussion board.

But...this is NOT to say that the parties involved aren't intelligent; IMHO, it just demonstrates a lack of judgement, and in the past I admit to having been guilty of the same lack of judgement. I would have thought by now that the ADULTS involved would've learned something from the poor example I set in days past, and would have been above such behavior.

Hope springs eternal that it's not too late for the lesson of my own shortcomings to take hold in the individuals involved here and now, and that they might move on and allow this discussion to revert back to just that.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I know it's not my place to say it, but I shall anyway:

Whenever one of these discussions deteriorates into a "flame war," who wins?

Certainly not the truth.

Nor the exchange of ideas.

Because of such crapola on the threads regarding Z-film alteration, I find myself avoiding those threads like the plague. But by doing so, in the event someone DOES post something that reveals some knowledge or facts not previously commonly known, I miss out on that information. My time on the Internet does have limits; I would prefer to spend it learning something new, or learning why something I previously believed to be true cannot be supported by the facts.

I would prefer NOT to spend my time in the midst of some schoolyard brawl which would be better served, IMHO, by exchanging email addresses and flinging excrement at one another directly, rather than clogging up a valuable discussion board.

But...this is NOT to say that the parties involved aren't intelligent; IMHO, it just demonstrates a lack of judgement, and in the past I admit to having been guilty of the same lack of judgement. I would have thought by now that the ADULTS involved would've learned something from the poor example I set in days past, and would have been above such behavior.

Hope springs eternal that it's not too late for the lesson of my own shortcomings to take hold in the individuals involved here and now, and that they might move on and allow this discussion to revert back to just that.

Nice try Mark, but it won't work.

Please recall that one is, after all, dealing with the male ego here. Which basically would indicate that anyone who, without verification of the actual facts, has repeatedly stated how poor a shot LHO was, and the relative difficulty of shooting from the sixth floor of the TSDB, must now either admit that they do not know what they were speaking of; completely failed to research the subject matter; or else have been completely duped by the WC as well as a host of those who have written on the subject matter.

See anyone standing up and yelling "Boy was I stupid"?

Exactly how many have admitted their lack of research into "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and the simple fact that Z312/313 WAS NOT the last shot fired in the shooting sequence.

One!----------------------------------That being Mr. Speer.

Meanwhile, those such as Charles Black, and others, continue to cling to the old BS about LHO's lack of shooting ability; the lack of ability on the part of the rifle; and the inability of one to accomplish the shots from the sixth floor window of the TSDB.

Which by the way is being claimed by those who never even bothered to find out that there was a shot fired after the Z312/313 headshot.

In even that places anything into perspective!

So, since Charles Black can not effective challange the factual evidence, he has decided to attempt to discredit the person who has pointed out this evidence.

A trick that most High School debate teams are well aware of, and one of which I can and will easily throw back into his enept world of research ability.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm

Major ANDERSON - I am a major in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER - How long have you been in the Marine Corps.

Major ANDERSON - Twenty-six years 3 months.

Mr. SPECTER - Of what do your current duties consist?

Major ANDERSON - I am assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER - And where is your current duty station?

Major ANDERSON - In Navy Annex, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

Mr. SPECTER - How long have you held that position?

Major ANDERSON - I have been stationed here for 2 years.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you outline briefly your qualifications, if any, in marksmanship?

Major ANDERSON - I have been working in marksmanship training for approximately 18 years. I am a distinguished rifle shot in the Marine Corps, master rifle shot, National Rifle Association of America.

Mr. SPECTER - Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you, Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?

Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zahm.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?

Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say NCO, what do you mean by that for the record.

Sergeant ZAHM. Noncommissioned officer.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been so occupied in that particular duty?

Sergeant ZAHM. Two years 4 months.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had if any in marksmanship?

Sergeant ZAHM. I became engaged in competitive shooting in 1952, and I became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches from 1952

through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won the President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup in 1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you characterize it as easy, difficult, or how would you characterize it to use a scope, a four-power scope in rapid fire?

Sergeant ZAHM. A real aid, an extreme aid.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?

Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/wood_s.htm

Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; I came out there. I had-been shooting for about 10 or 15 minutes and he came up next to me and started shooting, and he only shot about 8 or 10 times and I noticed every time he got through shooting he would take the breech and open it up and put the shell in his pocket

Mr. LIEBELER. He was a pretty good shot?

Mr. WOOD. He was the most accurate of all the targets that I noticed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply amazing at what one can find out if they take the time to merely read the WC testimony of what most would deem to be relatively reliable witnesses.

In fact, one just may find that there was a time interval of approximately 5.9 elapsed seconds between the first shot and the head shot at Z312/313 (second shot), not to include the fact that there was a shot fired after the Z313 head shot.*

*One can read about the third/last/final shot by reviewing the testimony of Mr. James Altgens, as well as a review of the US Secret Service re-enactment work of 12/5/63.

For anyone who happens to prefer actual research over speculative hypothesis based on BS.

[Jim Root]

Charlie

I am here to take responsibility for the comment about Walker's hair. In my post, which was in reply to your question I wrote this paragraph:

"in the quiet of the night" a church service was ending in the immediate area, "with unlimited time to fire" as people were leaving the service, "have missed," according to the initial report the bullet glanced off a cross panel of a window pane and narrowly missed Walker's head (I believe actually passing through Walker's hair). In my opinion this would have been a major "trick shot" to be made in an attempt to create some sort of publicity buzz. From my understanding the Dallas PD was on the scene within 10 minutes of the shooting and examined both the window pane and wall where the bullet lodged. The recovered bullet, which would be compared to the bullets used in the assassination of JFK, would be collected by the FBI from the Dallas Police on the Friday after the assassination of JFK; one day after the story of the attempted assassination ran in the German publication."

My point is that Thomas Purvis DID NOT make that comment.

But you, Charlie, said:

"Any reasonable person who reads this entire thread knows that I (Charlie Black) did not "make up" your (Thomas Purvis') comment regarding Walkers hair, and several other of your allegations. You are becoming trapped, as you have dug so many holes around what I think to be your ridiclous position, that you cannot dig out of the current hole, without stumbling into another."

Since Thomas Purvis did not make that comment (one that I, Jim Root, prefaced with "I believe") are we to suggest, using your words, that you are not, "Any reasonable person" who has "reads this entire thread?"

I do believe that you owe Mr. Purvis an apology and may want to rethink the manner in which you direct your comments towards members of this forum who are attempting to engage in a dialogue that will enhance our knowledge of the events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The reality of the events surrounding the attempted assassination of Edwin Walker show that Walker in fact received two wounds that were caused by wood slivers from the window frame that was hit by the bullet that entered Walker's home. The investigating officers (D. P. Tucker and B. G. Norvell) discovered a "small chipped edge of the top portion of the rear fence. This small chipped portion indicated that something had been laid on this board very recently..." "The bullet hit the window frame near the center locking device." "It is the investigative officers opinion that the shot was fired from just below the top edge of the fence."

In April of 1964 the Dallas Police Department determined that the same gun used to murder John F. Kennedy was used in the assassination attempt on Edwin Walker. On the same date the Dallas Police Department determined that the gun belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald and they determined that it was Lee Harvey Oswald that had fired the gun. The case was closed and considered solved.

Purhaps you will not accept the Dallas Police Department of being capable of investigating this crime and perhaps you will not be willing to accept their findings but the Dallas Police Department was on the scene within minutes and wrote their reports seven months before the assassination of JFK. Then, it was not until some six months after the assassination of JFK that they closed their investigation of the Walker incident by officially naming Lee Harvey Oswald as the shooter.

Hope this helps to clear the air.

Jim Root

Edited March 16, 2007 by Jim Root

[Charles Black]

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

[Jim Root]

Charlie

In reply to your statement:

"I do not acknowledge that "ON THE NIGHT OF the Walker Shooting Attempt" that it was reported that Walker was wounded...[/b

I have a copy of the police report that was taken on the night of the Walker incident as well as the follow up report that was written at a later date. From the orginal incident report I quote:

"Compl. (Walker) was hit in the right arm between elbow and wrist by either 2 slivers from the bullet, or wood, or pieces of glass."

If you choose not to believe two eye witnesses (Officers D. P. Tucker and B. G. Norvell) who were on the scene within 10 minutes of the incident of April 10, 1963 and wrote their report seven months before the assassination of JFK, then so be it.

But if you are in fact unwilling to accept this eye-witnesses report then I must ask the question, "Do you also suggest that we should be unwilling to accept other eye witness accouts fromt the events that surround the assassination of JFK?" Or perhaps you might suggest that we only select certain eye - witness accounts that meet our particular needs. Which is it?

Once again the source document that I have a copy of was written seven months before the assassination of JFK.

You also stated, "...nor that it was proven that the Dealey Plaza MC bullets MATCH those of the Walker attempt."

You may accept whatever level of proof you may need for whatever question you may wish to seek proof for. But from the Dallas Police Department's official (not the Warren Commission) "Supplemental Offense Report" of April 7, 1964 I quote"

"Please show this case cleared on the exceptional arrest of the below named party (Lee Harvey Oswald). His gun that was used in the murder of the President was also the gun used at this offence."

I have quoted from a source document that it took me several years to obtain. I have never seen it posted anywhere on the internet but have often seen it referenced.

Once again I do not wish to argue with you but I do wish to imput information that I have gathered over many many years. You may do with it as you please, disreguard it if you wish but the fact remains that I have drawn my information from the original copies of the police report written seven months before the assassination of JFK and the official Dallas Police Supplemental Offense Report the"cleared" the case.

Jim Root

[Charles Black]

Jim Root

Are you, after spending the number of years which you claim of researching this case, asking me if I do not believe a Dallas PD report, referencing anything to do with the JFK assassination, as a "Cleared Case"?

Are you suggesting that I should believe that the Dallas PD has been forthright in this case? Are you asking me to believe that they, from seconds after the gunfire silenced, conducted a proper and thorough investigation? Would you ask me to believe that Dallas PD would not lie to cover their ass?

Do you not believe that they mishandled the crime scene? Do you ask me to believe that they adequately protected LHO? Or that there were no notes taken of LHO's interrogations? Or that they found prints on the MC rifle although the FBI could not?

Does it really surprise you to know that I truly can accept as truth, only very little of their offerings? That there were no falsified reports in this case? That I should believe Marina Oswald's testimony, which WAS "the only evidence" that LHO participated in the Walker incident? Should I also believe, as she stated, that had it not been for her preventing Lee from leaving the bathroom in their apartment, that Lee would also have shot Richard Nixon? Or that Lee practiced with his MC rifle by aiming at leaves as she and Lee walked the baby thru the Municipal Park?

You might also want to ask what records the DPD has of other suspects which they investigated on 11/22/63? Who else was questioned and why they were released? Where are the records?

No Jim. I take at face value but very little of the so called "evidence" in this case. Certainly not the "official reports" to which you refer !

Yes ! The Walker attempt was a "Near Miss" by our soon to be Presidential assassin ! Because a Dallas Police Report so states ! That definitely should make it "FACTUAL" by those who have studied this case !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

[Jim Root]

Charlie

I don't ask you to believe anything. I have only reported the information that I have gathered over the years. You may do with it as you please.

But then again why should anybody believe anything? In other words why bother doing any research whatsoever when whatever we might dig up is going to be disregarded or accepted if and only if it fits into our own personal preconceptions of what occured?

That to me would be a total and complete waste of my time. For myself I have attempted to disprove my own beliefs for years only to continuously find additional information that supports what I began with, which was, in October of 1959 there was a posibility that Lee Harvey Oswald and General Edwin Walker may have met and that Edwin Anderson Walker is a most interesting character within the story that surrounds the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Jim Root

Jim Root

[Bernice Moore]

Not to get involved in this ongoing adventure....

But I do have a few mentions re the subject of the shooting at General Walker and LHO being involved...

As the only implications to him being there came from Marina..

But it seems re the information that this perhaps

all began a few days before the actual event....That the bullet found ,was attributed at the time to a 30.06 rifle..

and that it was only after the assassination of JFK that LHO was mentioned as being guilty, and that Marina related her story..

while in custody..

I have no idea now where I collected this from now, it was buried in an old folder....but relates to the Walker incident..

""On the night of April 8, Walker's aide Robert Surrey observed two men

suspiciously lurking about the house of General Walker, "peeking in

windows," and when called out by a neighbor, the men jumped into a car

with no license plate and fled. This was reported to the police almost

immediately. Walker had just returned from his coast-to-coast speaking

engagement ....

WC 5 H 448.

On Tuesday, April 9, Walker aide Max Claunch observed a

suspicious-looking "Cuban or dark-complected man in a 1957 Chevy" drive

slowly around Walker's house several times.

Anthony Summers, "Conspiracy" page 214.

On the night of Wednesday, April 10, 15-year-old Scott Hansen was

attending a Scout meeting at a church near the Walker house. He observed

a 1958 black-over-white Chevrolet parked along the fence next to Walker's

property. He had seen this car parked in the same place on a previous

Wednesday, and never saw it after April 10th....

FBI Report of June 4, 1964, FBI #100-10461.

At about 9 pm on April 10th, General Edwin A. Walker was sitting in his

study when someone fired a bullet through his window. The bullet glanced

off the wooden window frame and embedded itself in the wall above General

Walker's head. A 14-year-old neighbor, Kirk Coleman, saw two men flee in

separate cars from a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's house; one

man -- of medium build with long black hair -- he got a quick look at,

while the other was hidden from his view by a fence...

DPD Supplementary Offense Report, April 11, 1963, OfficerW. E. Chambers.

"The Dallas *Morning News* of April 11, 1963, carried a page-one story by

Eddie Hughes stating that the bullet that crashed through the rear window

and into the wall of the Walker house was 'identified as a 30.06,' and

citing other police findings on the authority of Detective Ira Van

Cleave" ....

Sylvia Meagher, "Accessories after the Fact " page 288.

An Associated Press story on the shooting was reported in

the *New York Times* of April 12, 1963, page 12; the police had no

suspects in custody; the bullet was identified as a steel jacketed 30.06..

The following day, "Toby," a dog belonging to a neighbor of Walker's,

Mrs. Ross Bouve, became terribly sick. Mrs. Bouve told the FBI later that

"she was of the opinion someone had given him something to quiet him or

drug him or poison him, because he did become sick and vomited

extensively on April 11 and 12, 1963. . . . She based her belief that the

dog had been given something because of the shooting incident and the

dog's habit of barking at anyone or anything in the alley area behind

Walker's house" ....

CE 1953.22--- also Sylvia Meagher page 290.

In a scintillating bit of discourse, Gen. Walker's aide Robert Surrey was

questioned about "Toby" by the Warren Commission.

Mr. JENNER. Does she have a dog that is sometimes obstreperous, does a

lot of barking?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; she does. . . . Anyone approaching the house, generally

her house or General Walker's house, would be barked at . . . in the

middle of the night . . .

Mr. JENNER. And you have approached General Walker's house, I assume, at

night, have you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. If the dog is out . . . the dog is alerted and barks?

Mr. SURREY. Not so much anymore. Evidently he knows who I am now.

Mr. JENNER. I see. But before the dog became familiar with you, he did

bark?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. . . .

WC5 H 433--also Sylvia Meagher page 290.

Walker hired a private investigator to look into the assassination

attempt when he grew frustrated with the efforts of the Dallas Police

force; he also had a suspicion that a former employee might have been

involved. The crime was still listed as unsolved on November 22, 1963.

It has also been attributed to General Walker that he did not believe that LHO was

involved in the shooting..in a video.......right now I have no idea which..though..

B