Charles Black

Hello Pat You must well understand that I "repeatedly" referred to eye witness testimony "on the afternoon of 11/22".....I have stated that repeatedly. Involving Newman, we are both right amd wrong. I have posted this before but the Newman Testimony to which you are referring, is not the testimony which he gave in Dealey Plaza immediately after the assassination. I have posted that testimony before, and will try to find and post it again. The testimony which you are referring to, occurred later in the afternon and was given at (I think) a radio station. The testimony had by then changed. I feel that you even acknowledged this, tho it was some time ago. I also don't know "what Zapruder testimony" that you are acknowldging that occurred "immediately" after the assassination. Pat, I acknowledge your extensive work, however I don't agree with it. Charlie Black

Hello Terry I feel that your statement that I shall quote, describes the situation as succinctly as I have ever heard it expressed ! " This would also serve the purpose of further stalling any viable, let alone credible conclusions as to what actually happened by conveniently being used as a ploy to try and discredit any eye witness testimony." "....I thought this was common knowledge, and for some time, now". THEY cannot release the Zapruder "Religion" because they know that "Humpty Dumpty will have a great fall, and all of the King's......will not put Humpty together again" ! I call it the Zapruder "Religion" as it is apparently based on faith alone ! Charlie Black Charlie Black

Hello All I realize that this WILL seem to be a ridiculous question by many, but due to my lack of experience and understanding of photo interpretation, I would appreciate a reply if even my question is considered a fantasy. If there were NO Zilm as a refernce or timing point that could be considered, how would it effect your interpretation of the two shooting positions from what these depictions seem to imply ? Could there have been two simultaneous shots considered as if two shooters were firing on direct command ? I am not attempting to divert this thread into another discussion of Z film authenticity, and I wont. But my question is serious and can be answered regardless of your individual interpretations of the Z film timing and authenticity. As a result of "these" images which seem to me to portray two differet shooters, would the "absence" of the Z film contribute in one way or another to your conclusions. Please excuse my genuine lack of filming knowledge,and this may certainly be an ignorant question arising from that; but this IS a sincere question and not an attempt on my part to introduce or promote contradiction ! Charlie Black

Hello Tim You could have at least thanked me for providng you the opportunity of disecting my post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding my "verbiage". Other than yourself, I don't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been my "inferred" question! Since you asked (quote) "What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner ? ", I will attempt to explain to you, providing I have the "abilities", the question which if too "compound and run on" for your comprehension, that I was attempting to infer and relay. My question is a little complicated, so in the hope that you will be able to absorb its elusiveness, I will attempt to break it down into a series of simple statements and questions. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, eyewitnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza made statements regarding what they observed during the shooting sequence. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, members of the Parkland Hospital trauma team which attended JFK, gave statements regarding the wounds which they observed at close range for approximately 30 minutes. I personally feel that the Parkland testimony would probably be accepted as "expert" as any that could have been given. The bullet strikes which the Dealey Plaza eye witnesses reported on that afternoon, are considered by most who have studied this event, to generally coincide with the wounds to the President, as described by the Parkland Team. In contrast to the statements given by these two separate sets of witnesses to the shooting of and the wounds incurred by JFK, there was an 8mm Kodacolor II home movie said to have been taken by a Dallas business man named Abraham Zapruder. Immediately after this film was taken, it came into the temporary posession and complete control of U.S. Govenment agencies. This film became exposed to the world public appx. thirteen years later. The compound question which I ask is "Why Does This Zapruder Film Depict Something Which Does Not Correspond With The Testimonies Given On The Afternoon Of 11/22/63, By Both The Dealey Plaza Witnesses, And What Must Be Considered Expert Testimony, By The Parkland Trauma Staff?" I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession. My "compound question" therefore is which depiction of these events do the forum members consider more reliable.....and WHY? Do forum members believe this Zapruder film, and the timing of events and the reactions of JFK which it represents, to be more believable than the witness testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63? Not to further compound or confound the question, but to further "infer" something nefarious....why do some of the photographs, purported to have been taken "during" the Bethesda autopsy, differ from the wounds described by the two previously mentioned sets of witnesses ? I hope this clarifies to Tim and others who may not have understood the complications of my original post, what my unanswerable compound question was ! I would also like to ask Tim, if he feels that his prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination? Charlie Black

Ron What I meant by explaining it to the baser masses, would involve nothing technical, as I wouldn't understand it either. What I was referring to was to take a film, any film, and demonstrate what the excision of frames does to both the picture and the timing, and how what you think that you saw, has been altered. Frames can be removed, re-entered at another time, reversed etc. The argument has never been that this film could not be altered . The argument is that it cannot be altered to such a degree that the alteration is undetectable. If this argument is wrong, and it apparently is, it would be obviously undetected. I am certain that aspects of this film are not a correct depiction. So are dozens of Dealey Plaza witnesses and Parkland Hospital staff members. Regardless of the ridiculous claim that "It can't be done".....it very obviously was done.....unless of course you care to believe that all eyewitnesses on the afternoon of 11/22/63, are wrong, blind, or for some reason lying. Regardless of arguments meant to diminish the credibility of both Parkland and Dealey Plaza witnesses, I consider them at least "as capable of reporting observed history" as have millions of eyewitnesses over a period of thousands of years of recorded history. The real "HOAX" hs been to "somehow" convince "some" people, that everything is incorrect except for what the film depicts ! This demands total gullibility in what are believed to be quite intelligent people. Lets get serious ! The reports of the eyewitness historians of the Napoleonic Wars is not being contested. Are humans now believed to be passing thru some sort of "reverse evolution" and are now no longer capable of seeing and recording actions and reactions ? I find it amazing what some very bright people have been manipulated to believe. Do you believe that the Dealey and Parkland eyewitnesses were all wrong on the afternoon of 11/22/63 ? If they were not wrong, the film has most definitely been altered. This ain't Rocket Science either ! I have in these later years become very wary of "some alledged experts". I do not feel that common sense and one's basic instinct should necessarily be set aside simply because someone states that they are expert. Who knows what MOTIVATES some experts. Are EXPERTS unable to lie as are we other mere mortals? Can testimony not be bought or threatened? The more that I consider this evidence, the more that I am convinced that I am correct. It "IS" what makes most sense ! Charlie Black

Hello Frank Tho I believe more that he was reacting to a strike in the anterior throat, the shallow back wound is also a possibility. I do not see The Prez loosening his tie or doing anything other than reacting to a blow ! I of course would not know what "coughing up a bullet" would look like, as I don't feel that such an incident has ever been recorded. Charlie Black

Hello Jim Root Perhaps I am having a "brain fog" this morning, but I am unable to see thru your post well enough to determine what is your bottom line? When you respond would you also clarify two points, which if you are stating what I think that you are, I am in disagreement with. You stated in reference to Walker's interview, that this was proof "... Oswald was willing to take a human life". Do you believe that an attempt on Walker's life, if it were "truly such an attempt and not a publicity stunt", was actually carried out by Oswald ? In the same reference, do you feel that a "marksman" with the ability to make the shots in Dealey Plaza, would have...in the quiet of the night, with unlimited time to fire at a seated target, in a well lit room, have missed ? The other point which I question is your statement "...put a man with a gun who was willing to use it in the perfect position to use it..." Are you stating that from a sniper / shooters point of view, that the so called "lair" was the perfect position to attempt an assassination? This positon was cramped, it forced the shooter against the wall, it provided a very limited time frame, a very difficult shooting angle and declination, and provided poor escape potential. What was pefect about this position ? This was "lunch time" ! Oswald could have had a firing position at ANY spot in Dealey Plaza, would not be absent from work, and also have had a much better pre-planned area to store/hide his weapon, and had a much better chance to escape. These are the major points which lead me to believe that I must have "missed your point" ! I would appreciate your response. Thanks Charlie Black

I feel that we are grossly overcomplicating a very simple matter. When Oz was looking for employment, no one KNEW the exact motorcade route. There "may" have been a person that KNEW that he could control that EXACT route. There may "also" have been Patsies at other locations in a contingency plan......to the best of my knowledge there has never been an important operation "without" a or several contingency plans. As I mentioned in my prior post in this thread, there were TWO prime reasons that THIS location was selected. 1) Since the shooters were not "Kamikaze" pilots, "probability of escape" would have been "one major concern" in their decision to participate in "the hit" ! Dealey Plaza offered a multitude of firing positions plus "a spread" from which many diversionary noises or shots could have been implemented to confuse and detract. Other than for possible noise detraction, the "snipers lair" was not a good potential firing position...poor shooting angle and difficulty of escape...but was used primarily for the framing of Oswald. It is important for the "hit men" to have realized that the SS was not going to open fire on the closely massed throngs of spectators. It was also realized that with so many people gathered, the fact that the assassins would have abandoned their weapons, and would easily have blended in with the crowds. The assassins most likely were NOT persons that would not "easily" blend in with the crowd. A SPY is not supposed to look like James Bond.... and a sexual predator would have little luck if he appeared NAKED and frothing at the mouth ! 2) The chosen "kill zone" had the potential for assassins not only front and rear, but from 360 degrees.....also from above and below (sewer drains). There could have been "spectator assassins" with concealed & silenced handguns. There was the potential in Dealey Plaza to completely surround the President with assassins. There would be "NO ESCAPE" for JFK. In my opinion, Dealey was ideal and it contained "THE" ideal assassin ! I supose that THEY considered it a WIN / WIN location...and they apparently were correct ! Why do we always try to complicate situations? The most obvious solutions are usually correct, whether you are a seamstress or an astronaut. Simplicity is usually THE key ingredient in any successful planning ! Since Columbus knew the world to be round, sailing West was bound to take him to "A" destination...even if he "discovered" his starting point. Charlie Black

IMO this forum exists to try to find out who did it. Everything discussed is toward that end. Ron We certainly have a major difference of opinion. I know "WHO" did it, other than the mechanics who actually pulled the trigger. I merely need a way to show the world that the conspiracy of Z film alteration could "only" be accomplished by those "Elite Few" who controlled the assassination and cover up. I know of no other way that there exists an opportunity of proving it. Proving altration, in fact, proves conspiracy. It cannot be proven on the real evdence which is based on physics, timing, ballistics, or evn a definite agreement on proof of the type wounds inflicted. If you study Pat Speer's contributions, you will even become unsure of the best evidence......which I personally feel is the "expert testimony" of the Parkland Staff. I feel that some "profesessed" conspiracy theorists are actually aiding (by intention or not), the continuation of the pursuit of tangents....time delay is the conspirators strongest ally. The conspirators have always KNOWN this......thus we have the continued introduction of inumerable tangents, which have kept this case from being solved. I am convinced that the only way to prove conspiracy to the "baser" masses, is to show them in a reasonable, easily understood manner, that alteration was both possible and proveable. Since I am speaking of someting which I personally do not have the technology to prove on a higher level, perhaps frame excision, and the effects which it can produce and change on a strip of film might be the simplest manner. I will re re-state, that regardless of arguments of physics, ballistics and actual wounds, it is essential to show to a mass audience, how the most basic type of alteration, can change the image and provide for a "truly false" timing of incidents. Even though a large percentage of people believe that Oswald Alone, did not kill JFK.....you enter a completely different realm when you attempt to show them, "which REAL high level persons" designed, promoted and propelled" a Coup d' Etat. We have taken upon ourselves the fruitless task of attempting to prove negatives, rather than showing that what was done, could only have been done, with the absolute support of the highest government levels. I contnue to attack Zapruder for one reason only. It is the "only crutch" by which the shot timing can be so contrlolled that makes the "truly impossible feat" seem even "remotely possible." It is the only way to indicate to the masses that the shots were possible in the alloted time frame: although they fail to tell us that "GOD" or some Higher Power had to be aiming and firing the rifle. Ron, aside from what is in the minds of "SOME Researchers".....there is nothing that has been proven to those whom matter and can demand change of the "History Books"! The most assured way, in my very limited thinking, is to prove but ONE THING. Alteration=Conspiracy ! Charlie Black PS Ron, I have nothing against poor old Mr. Abe Zapruder....only what has been done with his little strip of film !

Ron I am very sorry, but I cannot grasp the "point" which you are attempting to make. I feel that you are merely searching for "debate" at which I am not very proficient. As a matter of fact I have stated my beliefs to the extent, that my saying more would no doubt be redundant. I feel that I have been quite specific and that I have little of any more consequence that I can say. In my mind at least, the question has not nor will ever be answered, and I have nothing more that I can personally add. Ron ! If you truly believe that we have proven "conspiracy" to the world at large.....why does this forum exist? Some seem to think that it exists to spew and re-spew the same overly argued positions forever. These forums will continue, in my not very humble opinion, until someone is able to completely destroy the crutch, which is the Z film, that the single assassinists rely upon. It is brought up to you several times each day on this forum alone. Ignoring it and stating that, "It is there, but I, myself know better", will not make it go away. You must understand that THEY have to use their interpretation of this film to support the basis of this theory. Theory being that this mis-aligned piece of junk could fire so many deadly shots in the time frame which this film theoretically depicts. In my opinion Ron you have actually made "NO POINT". This adulterated film is held in as high esteem by some, as "The Holy Virgin" ! Not looking at it does not make it go away ! Charlie Black

I suppose that when researchers are faced with so many conflicting theories, purported to be supported, by "evidence", that it is impossible for a certain amount of paranoia to not enter the thoughts of all of us. But despite this, not everything is smoke and mirrors and highly questionable. What sometimes seems amazing, is that some things ARE exactly what they appear to be. Charlie Black

My opinion for why LHO didn't take the "easy" approach shot is the same reason that he took "NO" Elm Street shot. The book depository was used only to set up the PATSY. We must remember also that it was not anticipated that there would be "no return fire" from Secret Service and Police. A gunman firng on the "approach" would have been looking not only at JFK but at a follow up vehicle of armed agents and the potential of return fire from automatic rifles. These shooters did not have the mentality of "suicide bombers".....they were no doubt professionals that were getting paid to do a job. I suppose that they all wanted an opportunity to spend their earnings. Elm Street was used, certainly not because it offered agood shot from the TSBD. As a matter of shot, I don't feel that the angle from the "sniper's lair" was given anymore consideration other than..... "Well, this won't work, except for diversionary noise" ! The problem that stumps most researchers, is that there were enough shooters (some who I personally believe to have been very close to the President, in the Elm St. throng, with sound supressed, well concealed handguns), that the President was NOT going to leave alive. The President was going to be KILLED ! He could have been killed from several good vantage points well before he even approached Elm Street. One of the reasons that Elm Street was chosen, was the probability of shooter escape ! I feel that there were three reasons Elm Street was chosen. 1) The Patsy was there 2) Escape of the assassins (there was so much supplementary gunfire and explosions that the SS and police were so confused that they did not return one shot) 3) the throng of people were spread in so may directions, as was diversionary gunfire and noises, that there was not one spot to center their attention on. Without a visible gun in hand, every person there was a possible assassin. It was so designed that enough confusion was created that escape was deemed certain to most of the participating and stand by shooters. The creation of confusion was as instrumental in the operation's success, as the creation of confusion has been instrumental in a 43 year cover up of the act. Charlie Black

Hello Chris I agree ! Ron, in one sense you too, I feel, are correct. But, we don't need to disprove the Z film to most of those who already believe in conspiracy. We don't need a maximum number of shots in a controlled time period, because most who believe in conspiracy, feel that between four and nine shots were fired, and that they need not fit into a specific time frame. The other side needs a time frame, because they must conclude that one gunman was firing with a bolt operated weapon, from which a limited number of spent cartridge cases were ejected, and that there was another "live" round available that had not been fired. Their distorted time frame is upheld, they feel, by the distorted film. There are people who will ALWAYS believe in this Z film, "because it is there". There are also untold numbers of people who believe that their government does not lie. That is why George Bush's popularity rating has not reached zero....yet ! They have "nothing else" on which to base their NON THEORY ! This crutch, imho, MUST be removed. Only then will this hapless theory lie still, like the "smelly dead fish" which it certainly is. It is not ourselves, Ron, whom we must convince ! Charlie Black

Hello Ron and Mark Excellent idea, but untrue and can't be done. The Z film is always the foremost argument of the nonconspiracists. If the film weren't altered why do they stake their entire credibility in an effort to prove that it is genuine. You are I feel incorrect in one major sense. The proof of it's inauthenticity would be the ONLY factor required to prove conspiracy. Beyond ANY doubt ! I personally feel that there is absolutely no way that you will be able to PROVE conspiracy without debunking the Z film. You act as if this lone assassin theory is in any way based on common sense. It is based only that a rifle belonging to LHO was found in the TSBD where he worked...that he had theoretically "defected" to the Soviet Union, tho he chose to return, and was also believed to be Pro Castro. The TIMING of the shots in the faked film provided the "PROOF" that it was possible, according to our government investigations. The film and the manipulation of its timing of shots is their proof. This is why they have gone to such elaborate measures to prove to we stupid people, that they, THE TRULY LEARNED, must use a few million words to, in detail, explain the insurmountable complexities that would face some of the worlds brightest people, were they to even attempt that impossibility. They are defending that film with everything that they have, because they realize that they MUST. I feel that this issue is the ONLY obstacle in correcting history. Charlie Black

ALL MEMBERS....PLEASE READ As the originator of this thread...in an attempt that it not DEGENERATE to be a repeat of hundreds of others which have over saturated the subject, I requested something. I CLEARLY and DEFINITELY stated "several times in no uncertain terms", that this ONE THREAD consider ONLY TESTIMONY taken on the afternoon of ll/22/63 by the staff at Parkland Trauma and the testimony given ONLY on the "afternoon" of 11/22/63 by the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza to the Bullet Hits. I set these parameters, not to be dictatorial, but to prevent this thread from becoming another of hundreds of discussions regarding the Warren Report and the HSCA. I set these time parameters for one reason only. It does not matter to me if one or a hundred believe as I do the following statement. The most credible eyewitness testimony should be that given at the nearest time to when the event takes place....for two primary reasons...1) Memory does not improve with the passage of time and 2) and the passage of time allows other factors and other statements and perhaps fears to enter the thoughts of the interrogated. In that my question was very specific, and even might be considered a challenge, I feel that I have the right to so control what I clearly requested. I am not attempting to curtail free speech as any of you can originate a thread and discuss whatever you care to. Tho I think it impossible if any one miscomprehended, what I asked is very simply this. I feel that there were two groups of live individuals who were closest to and most likely to correctly evaluate the bullet strikes to JFK. One group which should be regarded as "expert" by any court, should be the experienced and highly qualified Parkland Hospital Trauma Team. The other group which although has come under attack by SOME naysayers and detractors, were those Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were within feet of the bullet strikes and "ONLY" THE TESTIMONIES WHICH THEY GAVE ON THE "AFTERNOON" OF THE ASSASSINATION. Testimonies which were given prior to being influenced by other opinins, fears, and pressures. I do not feel that my reasoning for HOLDING this topic to ONLY those two points is a mystery. To restate it very clearly.....I believe with my heart and with every gram of brain tissue which I might posess, that since the eyewitnesses and the EXPERT medical opinion given within minutes and hours of the assassination are not LIES, that this should be proof to any reasonable person that the GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED ZAPRUDER FILM, CANNOT be correct, as it dispays a completely different scenario to that which was reported. The U.S. government case is BUILT on this piece of film and the expected naivete and gullibilility of the American public to believe such a ridiculous lie "that this film could not have been subjected to frame excision and other alteration because it is tecnologically impossibe to be able to do so without detection." And many of you have believed this! Please lets use our heads....do you believe, because the "conspirators", and the conspirator controlled witnesses, propose to you "a prepared argument that it is impossible to undetectably alter this film"....which they, PRESIDENTIAL MURDERERS, attest to, and who have been the only persons in"control" of this film, that you should be gullible enough to place your trust in them and swallow it ? Yes I believe that there is no difference in Life Magazine control and intelligence agency control ! This is Child's Play ! This is why I feel that this subject is important enough to not allow some who might like to divert it, do so ! Pat Speer. I personally think that you are on a far off tract, if you feel that this case is based on the "incognizance" of medical experts ! I am sorry if this has been a tongue lashing, but I can think of nothing more importamt in this case that points to assassination as a direct result of conspiracy. Charlie Black

Gil I appreciate your originality, but I don't think that even in the Guiness Records has anyone ever been shot in the throat and spit out a bullet. As I have expressed before....I see a normal choking reaction, very similar to what I have seen on several ocassions when my childen or grandchildren temporarily choked while being spoon fed in their high chairs. They do not grasp their throat as this would further choke them. Both arms are lifted instantly to a position in front of their face or throat as they simultaneously emit a choking cough. Often when there arms are raised, their fists are closed but turned outward away from their throats. I do not deny that I personally feel that JFK was struck in the anterior throat my a missile of some sort, possibly a small caliber bullet, but I feel that his reaction is the result of being struck in the throat....not spitting out a bullet. Charlie Black

Hi Gary Although I have always understod, at least partly, the exclusivity of this group.....I have never been alert or clever enough to see the true POWER that is here assembled. Golf is definitely on the sidebar ! This is a faction of power that cannot be placed in the back seat. A very alert comparison to Skull and Bones. I would hate to even imagine the decisions discussed here that have enabled the continued disenfranchisement of what was once the "American Middle Class" ! I am probably most disheartened however with myself. I once truly believed that this was a republic that was truly "Of, For, and By the People of these United States" ! I truly believed this. I was also foolish enough to believe that the true path to success was thru hard work, intelligence, and loyalty ! I even believed that anyone American born, could become President of The United States. Looking back now, I realize that I could not have been TAUGHT these lies. I no doubt merely MISUNDERSTOOD ! Charlie Black

Bernice Exceptionally well done as has come to be expected from your detailed efforts. Were one to read ONLY your posting of the reports of the highly qualified Doctors and Staff at Parkland on "the afternoon" of 11/22/63, there can be litte doubt regarding either the "cognizance" or the competence of those who attended the President. These responses were immediate and without input of "any outside or politically motivated source". It has been my opinion, that these statements are furher complemented by those eyewitness statements given "only on the afternoon of 11/22/63" by the eyewitnesses which viewed the bullet strikes. Unless those of the Parkland Staff and the onlookers at the scene of the shootings, can be ridiculously believed to have been PRE PROGRAMMED TO LIE.....then how can anyone credibly state that this is not the most, by a great margin, the most immediate and credible evidence of the shooting and the inflicted wounds that can possibly be considered. The Parkland medical opinions would be considered both "expert and best evidence" by any court in ANY LAND ! It is as the body illegally and at gunpoint leaves Parkland, that the Conspiracy to Cover the Coup begins.(and has not yet ended) The case "against conspiracy" lies ONLY in government controlled film and photographs of both the assassination sequence and the Presidential wounds, and the illegally re - written autopsy report, of the the three "VERY CONTROLLED" U.S. Military Officers who were the government appointed Autopsists, and sworn to secrecy along with the remainder of the Bethesda Staff. This scenario would not even seem credible in a "C" classified movie. And then you are given a film that shows nothing regarding true evidence of the assassination, but are told that it must be accepted as fact because it is the governments ridiculous position that this film "could not be successfully altered"... "SO IT IS ABSOLUTE FACT"! And then if you have not yet had enough Disneyesque BS thrown at you....you are presented with faked photographs of the Presidents wounds depicting things unseen by any human being on 11/22/63. Most of the above posts are indicative of why I stated in my initial thread, that I had a simple question that would not, because it could not, be answered. I should think that most who participate here, have long known that this case has long been solved. There are some of you, not myself included, that are seeking the names and locations of shooters, which in my opinion is now of absolutely no significance. I really don't care if a group of those old men who might be still be alive ever see the inside of a jail. As a matter of fact, I truly believe that MOST of those FEW active participants, had been convinced that they were doing an absolutely patriotic duty, in the interest of National Security. My interest in this case has not been to send octogenarians to jail, but to REVEAL FOR HISTORY, THE TRUTH. So that this revelation will disallow anything similar to ever re occur ! Charlie Black

Hello Pat As I said, I never expected for you to discard the great amount of very sound study which you have devoted to this case. I feel that I should clarify a point which you seemed to mistake in your last post. I am not advocating that a head shot necessarily struck from the North Knoll, the South Knoll, from a ground level shot from Elm Street, or from one of the buildings to the rear and above the limousine. As I tried to indicate in "one" of my prior posts, I feel that the position of, or the number of shooters is of little consequence regarding my major point. My point being, that the film has been altered to the point that the number of shots, the location of the exact strikes, the direction of the origin of the shots and evidence of missed shots, has all been made IMPOSSIBLE to determine, because of the changes brought about in the extant Z film because of alteration. At least some of which was brought about by the changes in the perceived timing and perceived movements on the film, which would have been created, even if "film excision" had been the only alteration made. My point being that the falsity depicted on the film, is THE FALSE PREMISE upon which we are basing ALL that follows. If the initial premise upon which we attempt to build is false....how can the effects be otherwise? What I am proposing is not an exact origin or an exact number of shots, but that a conspiracy existed which caused the film to be altered. If we KNOW conspiracy we KNOW CONSPIRATORS, whether or not we know the names, number of, or locations of shooters. We do know the conspirators. We know of the only conspirators who could have altered film, closed the FBI investigation, and preformed the conclusions of the Warren Comission. I feel that it is "these same conspirators and their offshoots" who MUST INSIST on the authenticity of the Zapruder film or otherwise REVEAL THEMSELVES as what they are. I am not accusing those who currently believe in Z film authenticity to be conspirators themselves.... I do however accuse them of falling for a "quite ridiculous PARTY LINE". Again regarding your theory of the incognizant perceptions of medical staffs; I believe and certaily hope that you are wrong. Those who are still rallying behind the authenticity of the Z film, I feel are deeply involved in a major "Sin of Omission", rather than one of "Comission". They took the tempting bait of "alteration impossibility".... and absolutely swallowed it. This hook will not be easily removed. And this issue will never be put to rest if it is not! At least this is my impression of the depression which we have found ourselves stagnating in. Charlie Black

Hello Don I am sorry for my misinterpretation. Often, actually much too often, as my offsprings will readily state, that I, tho not meaning harm, will often press my arguments farther than needed. What truly I cannot understand however, and I have tried vey hard, is for intelligent people to believe that successful alteration of 8mm Kodacolor II film is impossible. When I think of only in the past 25 years, the scientific and technological advances that have been mastered, it is almost unbelievable. Advances such as DNA...the cloning of animals and even human organs....space technology....amazing weaponry...the advances in hidden surveillance...the world wide web...are but the tip of the iceberg. When I am told that the major stumbling block in the face of 43 years of intensive study by some of what I consider, the worlds intellectually elite, is the belief that film cannot be altered in an undetectable manner BOGGLES MY MIND. We are sending probes to distant planets and retrieving samples of their composition....and as I mentioned earlier cloning, "CREATING LIFE", and making almost daily, enormous strides in medical technology.....Yet I and you and millions of bright, clear thinking and highly educated people, are expected to believe one of the most preposterously conceived and ridiculous LIES ever attempted, and that it has somewhat successfully been received. The unbelievable lie to me and many, is that successful alteration of this piece of film is beyond our greatest human capability. I wish that EVERYONE would devote a few moments to this fantasy! How can ANY rational person believe this? It goes absolutely unquestioned that this one nation alone has the most probable capability of destroying all life on this planet...yet we cannot alter film ! I am neither a "rocket scientist" nor a "brain surgeon"....but neither have I been actively campaigning for that incomparable dignity of being the "VILLAGE IDIOT" ! I suppose that the only argument that I might hear is that I am not yet highly enough evolved to begin to comprehend such advanced thinking ! Please forgive my sermonizing, and thanks again for your response. Charlie Black

Hello Chuck I am in general agreement with most of what you said unfortunately. Allen Dulles once said something that I feel he had a little "wrong". The Americah people "do" read "somewhat" ! Where the problem lies, is that they all do not read at a high enough intellectual level. I am not implying "stupidity".....only naivete. The American people have been successffully "brainwashed" to believe that we are "The land of the free and the home of the Brave". Coups d' Etat do not happen in the USA....only in Bananna Republics and third world "hell holes". We were taught quite incorrectly. We are fraught with corruption, as are most governments, and our people and our military is quite capable of attrocities and horrible war crimes. We need to wake up ! Behold a new dawn ! Address the crimes that we have comitted against humanity, and realize that our government has committed "ITS BIGGEST CRIME" against its own people. I suppose there were people in caves some 20,000 years ago that figured out that..."The easiest persons to deceive and hurt are those that trust and love you". This is the reason that this Coup d' etat was successful. No one wants to believe that those whom they respect and love would BETRAY them. Regardless of the preachings of all of the modern religions, I PERSONALLY, feel that the BETRAYAL by those whom you have entrusted, is the biggest hurt, the BIGGEST SIN that can be comitted. It is such a horrible concept, that often even when faced with overwhelming proof, we are relunctant to believe that our love and faith can be betrayed. This is the reason that I felt assured when I started this thread, that it WOULD NOT be answered with logic and reason. It is some kind of a reluctance to admit that we have been so naive that we have truly been "VERY EASY TARGETS". This is why this LONG SOLVED CASE will never come to conclusion. Most of us are TOO PROUD to admit that we can be so easily manipulated with excuses that really do not make sense ! The actual TRUTH is too PAINFUL. I don't feel there is any degree of mystery left in this matter....unless you are one of those who must know who pulled what trigger, from behind what type of concealment, how many times ! The Coup has been understood by most of the world, as well as the REALISTS within the U.S., for probably four decades. Charlie Black

Hello Don I understand and respect your viewpoints, but I dont believe you have addressed MY Question. The persons who ran up the grassy knoll following the sound of gunshots, I don't doubt were absolutely correct in their assessment, as the persons who turned to the TSBD may have been. In my personal opinion, I of course concede that there were echoes at play in the Plaza. I also strongly believe that actual gunshots were in fact coming from different areas of the Plaza....some of which may have been diversionary. I also "suspect" that there is a strong likelihood that sound supressed weapons were used. IMHO, there is nothing that should lead me to believe that all of the eyewitnesses suffered some mass hysteria and did not "see and comprehend" correctly. Even tho military personnel are trained for combat, there is nothing that can perepare a young man for the confusion and fear of real live combat. In most instances, these young men are cognizant enough of what they see and hear, to stay alive and return fire toward the enemy, rather than their own companions. I feel that the Dealey Plaza eyewitness, without discussing the matter with each other, basically reported the "actual event as it happened". Not some product of their confused imaginations. These reports meshed with each other. They ONLY do not mesh with the film. I have no reason to believe that all of these people are wrong because it has been in the best interest of "some" to ATTEMPT to make me believe what I feel to be the "Most Important Lie" being told during the 43 years of this investigation. THAT LIE, I personally feel, is the successful effort of the conspirators to convince many of you that this one particular type of film, cannot successfully be altered by "ANYONE". I feel that someone expecting me to believe this is an "offense to me" ! Charlie Black

Hello Pat Even tho I don't agree almost in any way with your proposals, I don't expect the amount of effort which you have devoted to your study, to be set aside by my "little posting". But I certainly HOPE that you are wrong ! I would like to think that were I taken to a Trauma Room, that the medical staff would be "Cognizant Enough" to determine where and the general seriousness of my wounds, even if I were hung upside down and slowly spun around. I not only "hope" but I feel that most could adequately do this. You have certainly in no way even slightly changed my views. Pat, I cannot go thru life thinking A) that the majority of the world lacks reasonable cognizance and that what I feel is a very obviously altered film, that has only been in the hands of a group conspirators, who had access to the most technologically elite minds in the world; did not alter this film...therefore I should believe that all of the Dealey Plaza witness testimony, on the afternoon of 11/22/63, is wrong due to the acute degree of incognizance of all of them. Pat, I feel that this is as ridiculous as "any" idea that I have heard ! Charlie Black

PLEASE EXCUSE...IF I COULD DOUBLE MY BANK ACCOUNT AS OFTEN AS I CAN DOUBLE POST....I WOULD BE ONE VERY HAPPY "INCOGNIZANT" ! I genuinely am not attempting to be rude but in my train of thought, very truthful. If this truly in your mind perfectly gels, and makes sense to you, please don't yet cease your quest for more books on cognition. I truly realize that there are cognitive limitations. They however do not extend to the point that on any occasion, you may arbitrarily take the perceptions of a large number of mentally cognizant persons, and at your will suggest that the group is incognizant, because a picture shows something different than what the many cognizants observed. This is truly fishing and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g far beyond reasonable limitations. I am familiar with your presentation, so inviting me to partake is not the answer. Were I comparing one eyewitness interpretation to a film, of questionable authenticity......I am not certain that even in this instance, which I would choose. But we are not referring to one person's cognizance. We are referring to a group, many of which I personally feel are quite highly qualified, who have reported the same event, in the same manner, without outside influence, on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. To intimate that this entire group is unaware of what they saw, casts, in my opinion, a great shadow upon anyone claiming cognizancy ! I am expected to believe, that a group of conspirators, with the power, money and access to the highest levels of technology, and with the support of the braintrusts behind several of the worlds most proficient intelligence agencies, was in posession of a piece of evidence of the utmost importance to the perpetration of a Coup d' Etat on the most powerful government on earth, that they would have found it impossible to alter beyond detection, an 8mm strip of Kodacolor II film. Am I to further believe that these government agencies did not want this film released, but they were outwitted by a clever citizen, and that is the only reason that it surfaced 30 years ago ? They of course did not want it to surface, but they were just "damned outsmarted." This may make perfect sense to you, but to my thinking, it is as obscenely absurd as an episode of the "Keystone Cops". Charlie Black

Pat Speer I genuinely am not attempting to be rude but in my train of thought, very truthful. If this truly in your mind perfectly gels, and makes sense to you, please don't yet cease your quest for more books on cognition. I truly realize that there are cognitive limitations. They however do not extend to the point that on any occasion, you may arbitrarily take the perceptions of a large number of mentally cognizant persons, and at your will suggest that the group is incognizant, because a picture shows something different than what the many cognizants observed. This is truly fishing and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g far beyond reasonable limitations. I am familiar with your presentation, so inviting me to partake is not the answer. Were I comparing one eyewitness interpretation to a film, of questionable authenticity......I am not certain that even in this instance, which I would choose. But we are not referring to one person's cognizance. We are referring to a group, many of which I personally feel are quite highly qualified, who have reported the same event, in the same manner, without outside influence, on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. To intimate that this entire group is unaware of what they saw, casts, in my opinion, a great shadow upon anyone claiming cognizancy ! I am expected to believe, that a group of conspirators, with the power, money and access to the highest levels of technology, and with the support of the braintrusts behind several of the worlds most proficient intelligence agencies, was in posession of a piece of evidence of the utmost importance to the perpetration of a Coup d' Etat on the most powerful government on earth, that they would have found it impossible to alter beyond detection, an 8mm strip of Kodacolor II film. Am I to further believe that these government agencies did not want this film released, but they were outwitted by a clever citizen, and that is the only reason that it surfaced 30 years ago ? They of course did not want it to surface, but they were just "damned outsmarted." This may make perfect sense to you, but to my thinking, it is as obscenely absurd as an episode of the "Keystone Cops". Charlie Black