Charles Black

Just one more thing that I would like to say regarding rules and this forum.

Since I am neither an anarchist, nor have ever been arrested, and I have also participated in local government.....I don't want to express to anyone that I object to sound government, or that I do not believe in the absolute requirement of "sound" laws and rules.

It appears to me however, that recently, rules are relegating discussion to a secondary position. In my opinion, the cart has perhaps been placed in front of the horse, and the tail is now wagging the dog. Is etiquette edging out education, or is the primary purpose in participating here, discussing manners or murder ?

Or was Andy's latest statement just another slap at Americans for the "hell of it"?

Charlie Black

Andy Walker

Due to your "exalted" position on this forum, you have in the past done so, and you with your last post on this thread have attempted to belittle a forum member as you would an "ass". Kick me off if you so wish, but your last post to me is the most OBNOXIOUS statement that I have EVER heard a forum director direct at a forum member.

Andy stated "If challenged to do so it would be difficult to conjure up five more absurd statements relating to an extremely simple forum requirement."

You didn't have to be "terribly challenged" to be able, within one simple sentence, to be much more obnoxious than I was in five. And if others on this forum were not afraid of your POWER, I am certain thay many who have read this will agree(if you don't delete it too quickly)!

I think it would be difficult for anyone with minimal intelligence to agree with your ridiculous evaluation.

I truly question not only your slovenly judgement, but your intellect and your obvious lack of class and breeding. I have heard Americans, on many ocassions, belittled on this forum as being cursed by a lack of culture, but I have never heard one say anything as crass as your last little jewel.

My statement to John Simkin contained nothing absurd, unreasonable or un gentlemanly !

You are in over your head! Your only recourse is to "boot me" as you have "Shown Your ASS" ! AGAIN !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

I'm all for the photo and bio qualification for this forum. It's what makes this forum unique (aside from John's presence and participation). The number of trolls is greatly reduced when people are asked to use their real names and images. Sure, some can get around it. But most won't take the time to concoct a fictitious persona. I seriously doubt there is anyone out there with anything worth sharing about the assassination, that wouldn't gladly follow these rules. If someone, say a former CIA op, wishes to contribute some info, but anonymously, they can always contact John directly. I believe several have.

PAT

You said "I doubt that there is anyone out there

with anything worth sharing about the assassination...."

"And the number of trolls is greatly reduced when

people are asked to use their real names and images."

Have you departed this Planet ?

Are you really commenting on the JFK murder conspiracy ?

You feel that there is no one out there who has anything new to offer?

And do you really feel that "TRUTH" results from people being asked to use their real name and images ?

But Pat....I keep forgetting !

You really believe that surgeeons have difficulty in determining left and right, as well as back and front, if their patients "goof up", and disorient the surgeeons, by mistakenly laying down on the operating table.

This is getting curiouser and curiouser !

It is amazing that at one time I made an "A" in a course titled "LOGIC" !

Charlie Black

Due to their proximity of age, my thoughts turned to Gerry Hemming who I understand is also not in the best of health.

I was wondering if anyone here has a somewhat close correspndence with Gerry. There is a treasure trove there, but I can far from determine exactly what it is .

In my few correspondences with Gerry by email, I found him to be a quite likeable individual, tho I was never astute enough to have ever learned anything more than what has been already published.

Although several persons have tried to explain it to me, I have never understood how a person with the foreknowledge which he apparently had of the assassination of JFK, and his mention of some of the individuals involved ........that he was not arrested for not reporting this foreknowledge of the attempted murder.

The only reasoning that makes sense to me is that he did report it, and has managed to stay alive as a result of some very incriminationg evidence which he has strategically safely held.

Can anyone fill me in on what I have missed?

Otherwise, I have not been able to make this fit !

Charlie Black

Hello John

I realize that this is your forum and you certainly have the right to set and enforce any rules which you deem appropriate, and if one wishes to participate in this very worthwhile forum, that they can be held to honor these rules.

I do however wish that you would consider the "true" value of this easily sidesteped rule versus any possible negative effects which it could have on forum participation. Any grade schooler wishing to deceive and participate could certainly do so as could the Director of Central Intelligence.

To my personal thinking, this is more in keeping with an application for membership to a weekly Tea Dance, than it is for a discussion and research group studying what is most likely the greatest Coup d' Etat in World History.

When I more or less passingly referred to finger printing.....it certainly in my opinion, makes much more sense than the submission of a picture of "an anyone".

Furthermore, if one were so inclined, one could submit an obnoxiously absurd Biography, that might hold other participants in total awe.

I recently emailed you the reason that mine isn't posted, and that you are aware that you have my photo in your posession....so the reason that I continue to comment on this subject, has nothing to do with a personal refusal on my part to abide by the rules.

I simply feel that this rule might be inclined to scare away persons that may have significant ideas or facts to contribute to the forum, while it will in no way deter their opposites. I don't feel that this is in any way a "win, win" situation.

Charlie Black

Charlie,

It's a rule. I only asked if it was still being enforced. You parked your snout in this thread and raised the strange issue of paranoids with secrets and fears. And if you don't speak for the 007's of the world why the hell are you doing so? Nobody's talking about DNA or fingerprints. Get a grip.

And while we're here, I believe you were pouting some time ago about posters not following rules. They're important only when it suits you?

Mark Valenti

To answer you, I have a grip and a hell of a good one. You question me putting my "snout" into things, in a manner that I find to be much more agressive than if you were not hiding in the relative safety and possible anonymity of a forum. Anonimity that is present whether or not you have personally posted a picture of a "someone"! Here you can be as brave as you care to be, and know that you are quite safe.

You have made NO reasonable point except that you apparently feel like being ridiculously confrontational. Who the hell do you think you are, a "self appointed" seargent of arms?

If you cannot find sound reason in my statements regarding some persons desire to not be photographically identified, you have much more to learn than I or probably anyone on this forum can explain to you. You must be quite impaired to not understand that everyone has not had the relative security which you seem to have enjoyed, and that there are actually some here, on this forum, that have participated personally in several of the areas which are frequently discussd and were actually a part of making this history.

I personally do not feel that you are "qualified" to challenge me in any area, so I will not put up with your childish jibberish that promotes no position, other than you want the "playground rules" enforced so that you can be personally more comfortable.

Now...why don't you "Get Off My Ass" and go and tell the teacher that I am breaking more rules !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Mark Valenti

In my personal opinion your last post beat around the bush, as you do usually, and made "no" argument for the mandatory posting of personal photos.

No! I don't speak for the "007's" of the world, but there are many out there and they are represented on this and similar forums.

There was nothing ridiculous or not completely sound regarding my last post. There are those who would track "rules breakers" that are in violation of an outdated rule defining where a horse might deficate, that may have been an important rule in the year 1066, but has held no practical validity in 100 or more years.

In my honest and somewhat knowledgeable opinion, I sincerely feel that there is absolutely nothing that can be gained, tho there could be losses incurred, as a result of the enforcement of this rule which serves no educational or truly practical

cause.

What should follow next..... fingerprinting or DNA profiling ?

I do not believe in rules with no practicality or laws that are unenforceable. There is no reason for either to exist.

But of course.....Beady Eyes and Snide Comments may play an important role in some new science of which I am not yet aware.

Charlie Black

Mark Valenti

Posted the following ... "There are some (unnamed) pithy posters who periodically pontificate on this forum--- sans personal photo"

Which he follows with "Sometimes it is illuminating to match a face with a rant, or a beady eye with a snide comment".

Since I feel that I am probably one of those "beady eyed and snide commentors" to whom he refers are pontificating on this forum, I feel that I should offer a couple of "MY personal thoughts" on this manner.

This is a comment that I would expect from an old comic character named "Dudley Doright of the RCMP."

I personally feel that it is a very strange desire

to wish to look upon "a beady eyed pithy poster".

But if ths is what turns some on, why should I judge them?

More seriously I would like to mention a couple of points regarding the photo postings that some may not be aware of. I do not mean to imply that any of the following reasons apply to me personally.

There could be certain members of this forum who have some inner knowledge of "behind the scenes" in a great many of our topics. Not that I necessarily approve of it, but these persons could be posting under a false ID out of fear, as this at times can be a quite sensitive topic. There may be those who want the "knowledge put forward or to stimulate thought in a particular direction" without possibly putting their lives or reputations on the line.

There may be some members who might still be engaged in "under cover" operations.

It should also be acknowledged by everyone, that true "spooks", do not even want their photos taken at all, much less plastered on the world wide web.

I feel that these are quite valid and valuable reasons to not force photo posting.

It is also apparent, I'm sure, that one does not have to be a "007" to realize the ease of posting a fake picture or BIO.

Some seem to think that the posting of a photo is akin to displaying a security clearance....which is ridiculous. Those whose purpose is "to deceive" will do so regardless of any rules of heaven or earth.

Some might even consider this "requirement", if it is such, a means of racial or political profiling!

Since this is not a "dating service", or a "Pen Pal" type operation, and since we realize the hopelessness of being unsure that we are looking at a true photo of who is posting; I see no value that can be derived from such a rule...and some possible harm.

In my particular case, I just don't want anyone knowing how "ugly" my features actually are. Perhaps I could post an old photo of Cary Grant or Errol Flynn.

Charlie 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

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

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 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

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

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

Only three questions

1) Is it a novel?

2) If not, who was the dying surgeon ?

3) Who is the M.D. Friedel ?

Charlie Black

Hello Tim and ALL

The one area in which we all might agree is that many, of whom I call the middle mangement, of this "Coup", did not consider themselves treasonous or assassins. To the contrary, I feel that many of these people deeply felt this ugly job HAD to be carried out, because they felt that JFK's policies involving the Soviet Bloc and Communism in general,

was putting both the U.S. and the entire world at the mercy of what they deeply believed to be a possible Armeggedon, if their seemingly continous growth and power were not halted.

They were falling for the same type of bait that LBJ so successfully used when he was convincing both Earl Warren and Senator Russell to participate on the Warren Comission. It was an "appeal to patriotism"! It was an appeal to curb the growth of Communist power, before they became "powerful enough" to risk an attack upon the free world.

Kennedy was seen to be, and in fact was, circumventing a portion of the government and its agencies, which had not gone unnoticed, and may have easily been considered by some, to be a genuine threat to National Security.

These persons were not all self seekers who conspired for power, but some were those "who all breathed the same air", and wanted the same things for their children, as do the rest of us !

I personally feel that this is the major factor which allowed for the so far successful cover up.

These people believed that they held the same self interest and love for their country as do most of us.

Perhaps this is proof that "con men CAN be conned"!

Charlie Black

Hello Tim

Sorry to find out that you have been ill. I sincerely wish you the best.

When I speak of the "certainty of who dun it", I didn't mean to imply that they were ALL necesarily

cowboys OR indians. Just as I did not mean to imply that there were not very many media interests other than those of Luce, which have and continue to aid the "cover up". The "who dun it" that I refer to, perhaps too casually, is "The Power" factions, whether they be media, industrialist, banking, oil interests, etc.

In the many specifics involved in the coup d' etat,

there were areas in which the interests of both the Cowboys and Indians were mutually served.

I don't feel that "oil" had necessarily more to gain than "banking" which had more to gain than munitions manufacturers, and so forth. All of these interests had a unifying purpose. The purpose being that they would all "gain" considerably with the removal of JFK.....particularly when they understood the "WHO" and the "WHAT" that was guaranteed to immediately follow.

Though the specific interests of these power bases may have varied, they were united, by their worship of money and power.

As I mentioned in another thread, the purpose of my interest in this case is not to jail a group of octogenarians, but for the people of the U.S. and the world to realize what actually occurred had more to do with seizing the control of power, BY THE FEW, and the very bold statement which this siezure has signified. This cabal (for lack of a better word) is what has, and has had, control of this country.

I feel that it knocks down the fences in territories of both Cowboys and Indians for the purpose of mutual greed and gain.

I feel that too often we attempt to embrace specifics, rather than seeing how, in the completed jig saw puzzle, that all of the pieces support each other and are in many ways interdependent.

Again, I am very sorry to hear of your illness and I wish you the best. When we finally look at the bottom line, our interests are no doubt supportive of each other.

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Tom

You are at it again....only higher and deeper !

Charlie Black

Hello Paul

Thanks for the references. Things are so foul that it is not a wonder that many won't allow themselves to believe the truth. The influence of the Luce Clan alone could fill volumes that most innocents would not believe !

As far as "Free Press" over here.....not even a glimmer.

It is bad enough that it isn't "free".....but the actual "cost" of it is what is sinking us. I feel that we already have a 30 degree list to "starboard"! If maybe we could rid ourselves of the bilge...? No I am afraid we have passed that point also !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Hello Mark

I certainly respect your opinion but that is "one hell of a big EXCEPT" !

quote Mark> "..except for the whereabouts of Oswald at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22, 1963".

I wish that someone could "without a doubt" prove his whereabouts !

I do disagree with your theory of Oswald/Lovelady !

Although I cannot personally attest to the issue of the shirt, I will bet the farm that the face is Lovelady's .

But, as always in this case, there is another "catch" which I will refer to as catch ten thousand and twenty two. If you believed in photo alteration, which you do not, one might suppose that the government super imposed Lovelady's face on top of Oswald's shirt, to insure that no one could prove Oz not to have been on the 6th floor during the shooting. But then....you could no longer agree with Tom.

I have no "answers" Mark....just different speculations !

Charlie Black

When referring to the press coverage and the effect of the major magazine pictorials which were used, does anyone on the forum misunderstand the role and influence which Mr. & Mrs Luce, alone, exerted on the "medias" position?

Is there anyone here that doubts their political, and financial inclinations and the power and influence which they "in fact" brought to bear on this case ? Have you ever asked what effect Life Magazine and the major media had on the INITIAL impressions presented to the world ? And more importantly how those initial impressions stll affect this case?

I can say that I believe that the effect of the media, may have over the years, done more to disguise the truth than did the Warren Commission.

Does anyone believe that there is a "free press"?

What is reported by the media MUST of course be influenced by those who sign their paychecks.....or someone new is waiting and willing to fill their very high priced shoes.

What is reported is controlled by that same power that controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

To those who are now paid to be the "talking heads" to which we tune in daily, "free press" is as ridiculous a theory as "free sex." Neither truly exist.

Without planning, I happened to mention both the subjects of "sex" and Mr. & Mrs Luce in this same thread. For those of you who have not done so, I don't feel that you should be surprised at the partners whom they both chose for their extra-marital sexual affairs.... if you care to so investigate. But I won't spread gossip...even tho it can be referenced !

This truly is a very small and very wierd world in which we live. Six degrees of separation is not an exaggeration !

Charlie Black

Tom Purvis

I have spent far too many hours of endless debate with you, so I won't again fall into the trap !

I MUST call you however on two points, which are much worse than merely "not based on fact" !

Re the alledged Walker Shot: you stated that "the shot actually passed thru Walker's hair".

Wrong again Tom ! You cannot reference that !

Tom then stated "....poor potential for escape, yet the perpretator merely walked out of the building with no interference"

Tom how can you post something this unreasonable and expect ANYONE to take you seriously ?

What perpretrator?

What was his name?

Which door did he use?

How fast was he walking?

In which direction did he turn?

You know of course that I MUST ask you to reference this "apparently newly breaking news item" !

I have for the most part "stopped" replying to your posts, because statements such as these, which I think are meant to mislead newcomers to this subject, have FOR YEARS, run rampant in your posts.

Most of what you post, from your "TWIG THEORY" thru your comment on Walker's hair are completely unsubstantiated. Please don't tell me another time that the basis for the "TWIG THEORY", are those old land surveys to which you often refer !

What "good" information that may at times be derived from "a few" of your posts, becomes darkly shadowed by some of the utter unproveable and unreferenced, absurdities which are ALWAYS certain to follow.

Tom, I don't want to break your heart, but I am afraid that you have become a "legend in your own mind" !

Charlie Black

Hello Jim Root

I appreciate your well thought out reply, BUT, as you might have guessed, I disagree with most of the points made. In an effort not to place the forum in a position in which they will again have to wade thru arguments that I and others, have on too many ocassions previously posted, I will spare everyone.

My general disagreement lies within the context of my post to which you have just replied.

Charlie Black

Tim

What I truly don't understand is why you have taken it upon yourself to critique my writing style and to correct my sentence structure. I feel that it has been a needles waste of forum time and space to do this, since you added nothing substantive to the discussion. Tim, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but if I truly gave a damned about improving my writing style and sentence structure,

I probably would have continued my education and at leaste attempted to go on to high school !

I am not certain of any point that you were attempting to make, but did you infer that I was attacking the non altered Z film theory at a time when most of its defenders were not present on the forum....which is unfair ?

Regardless of what your intent, is or was, in choosing to attempt to ridicule me...I suppose that you have that right !

But if you ever expect me to "attempt" to respond to anything that you post, you must let your flaps down and descend slowly to my level.

To be more to the point, I have no idea if you have been asking me a question to do with this subject, or whether you were attempting, in a socially correct manner, to express disapproval of my writing style.

If it is my writing style...simply forget it, as I don't particularly care about your opinion of it.

If you are attempting to ask me a question, I'm afraid that you must lower yourself to a level which I might be able to comprehend.

I hope that those members who support your position of no film alteration, soon return in order to assist you.

Charlie Black

Hello Ron

There are only two ways in which I can respond to your questions.

For the first, I will ask you to refer to my last response to Pat Speer !

If what I think that you are telling is that you believe Newman and Zapruder are correct, and that all of the expert testimony given by the Parkland Staff is wrong because they were incapable of "cognizant orientation" of JFK's wounds......

There isn't a great deal that I feel I could respond to, that would make sense to you.

I would without doubt or hesitation, place my faith on the Parkand Staff...without the slightest pause.

Perhaps "I" am cognitively impaired, BUT , I feel that the Parklad testimony (which was given on the afternoon of 11/22 only) is the soundest and most solid evidence in this case.

As a matter of fact, I feel that the entire defence case could be based on this alone !

Charlie Black