Charles Black

In an attempt to save forum time and space, I shall attempt to respond to the posts so far in this thread, with this one response. Jack White---I think that you are most likely "right on" ! Evan Marshall---I don't think that you are making a serious attempt to address the question which I proposed. I am saying that every eyewitness (dozens), reported the same identical actions. Please remember that I made a "major issue" of addressing only testimony taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63, before any of these eye witnesses were influenced by the testimony of others. Do you think that all of these people had a similar "miraculous vision" in which they all are convinced that they witnessed the same reaction of JFK.....but this is not what really happened, because you know absolutely that these government controlled filmed pieces of evidence, could not have been tampered with. As a law enforcement officer, do you also maintain that there is never an attempt by some personnel "in law enforcement" to plant false evidence? Why should any thinking person dismiss that during a National coup d' etat, that the conspirators would not "mishandle evidence" ? And that ordinary bystanders all chose miraculously to tell the same lie ? Come on Evan ! Mark---you did not address my question. We are not talking about "CONFLICTING" eye witness testimony. We are speaking of dozens of independently taken testimonies on the afternoon of 11/22/63 which are all in agreement ! Kathleen----There is one more "OR" that you failed to mention, tho what you did state may very well be true. The other "OR" is--------"OR the photos at Bethesda have been grossly altered", and that is what has caused the confusion. With the "possible" exception of some testimony of the autopsists.....several of these pictures are what NO ONE reported seeing. Charlie Black

There's a head snap in the Nix film. Is that film not a "witness"? Or was the Nix film altered too (to deliberately put in a backward movement of the head)? RON You are absolutely correct ! The Nix film is NOT an eyewitness ! Charlie Black

For years I have on this forum and on two others asked one simple question, which for all of these years and literally thousands of posts, never has been satisfactorily answered by anyone. By a "satisfactory" answer, I mean an answer that could reasonably be believed by reasonably educated and reasonably sound minded persons world wide. Among the latest of these has been the "Craig Roberts, Kill Zone" thread. I have asked "dozens" if not a hundred or more times, for one simple explanation. I have received only "One and The Same Answer", which I feel that most people, with the ability to reason for themselves, should find ABSURD. In advance I shall tell you the "ONLY" answer that I find unrealistic, unreasonable and absurd. That pat answer is simply that "ALL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE". Not minding being redundant, I shall say one more time, that if this ridiculous statement were true, that there should be no reliable History recorded before the mid nineteenth century, since all historical events were based on eyewitness descriptions. My "ONE" point in fact is this and please do not attempt to change "any" of the wording. All of the dozens of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses which gave testimony "ON THE AFTERNOON OF 11/22/63 ONLY", reported something not only UNLIKE, but CONTRADICTORY, to what is exhibited on the extant Zapruder film. I cannot allow testimony that may have been "later changed" as the result of a multitude of reasons. None of those reasons howevever will express the theory that, MEMORY IMPROVES with the passage of time ! I am not going to be ridiculous enough to to requote these testimonies and the times that they were given, because everyone to whom I am delivering this message, has long been aware of them. NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963, reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 ! If you want a secondary matter to toss about regarding eyewitness testimony, contrast the eyewitness descriptions at Parkland Trauma versus some of the Bethesda photos. Really think about this if one of your answer is going to be that one piece of scalp is being held up at Bethesda and another was patted down at Parkland. Why would the Bethesda autopsy team be innocently holding up this piece of scalp. I thought that the purpose of autopsy photos was to "record factually" the wounds.... not to disguise them. I am willing to wager that not many of you researchers, who "truly" have an open mind, will be very impressed with the explanations given. Yet you continue to shy away from the obviously "ONLY" answer ! It is as if unswerving belief in the truth of all film, and the lack of certain films "successful alterability", is a faith that must be maintained for those truly seeking a passage to heaven. How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers ? Charlie Black

double post.... SORRY

If I may veer away for a moment regarding the shot numbers, I have a question for all of the faithful die hards, that are no doubt determined to go to their graves bravely defending the sanctity of the virginity of the Z film..... When these witnesses along with many others, describe JFK's reaction as "SLUMPING" over, rather than exhibiting a violent head and body snap, do you really feel that they truly all have a problem with "vocabulary"? Do you think that what they are really trying to describe is in fact what "YOU" have seen in the Z film following "at any time" after Z312? "Slump" and "Snap" are probably considered near opposite reactions by some of us illiterates ! Charlie Black

After having completely re-read this entire thread, and having considered both some sound points and speculations of some researchers whom I hold in high regard, I realized that my re-reading yielded exactly what I thought that it would. Forty three years after the fact, we still do not know who killed Tippit, what he looked like, from which direction was he coming, where was he heading, in exactly which direction did he flee, what he was wearing, were there more than one assassins, at what time the shots were fired, what Tippit was really doing in Oak Cliff, and a great many other important questions. Most importantly, we do not know that Tippit's murder was in any way connected to the JFK assassination. What has beeen attempted, but in my opinion never proven, is that if LHO did in fact shoot Tippitt, it is unlikely that he would have done so had he not shot JFK. In other words this is theoretically the "proof of the pudding" ! However in my honest opinion, we have "neither proof nor pudding", and none is likely to be forthcoming. Tippit may have been "collateral damage" in the murder of JFK , or he may have had a personal enemy that wanted him so assuredly dead, that the murderer took the time to stand over him and administer a coup de grace, rather than immediately flee. This is pure speculation, but it is possible that Tippit was in the area only to answer this man's personal challenge. That may be why Tippit's gun was drawn. We have a hell of a lot of smoke and mirrors in this case. Perhaps some planned and others coincidence ! Also, do we really know that the .38 special ammunition said to have been in Oswald's posession, which were made by the same manufacturers of the ammo that killed Tippit is factual. The Dallas PD used .38 special weapons, and there was probably an abundance of various ammo makes among the policemen. There is also no evidence chain of posession, regarding the "hulls" that were supposedly picked up at the murder scene. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of controversy that also surrounds those. Charlie Black

All Members & Moderators Does anyone other than myself find it difficult to engage in threads in which Tom Purvis has an interest, due to the repetitiveness which one must wade thru, in order to post a response? I feel that this type of posting is a great waste of forum space as well as members time. Unless I want to devote much time unnecessarily re-reading thru the exact same information, I personally often find it easier to disengage from the discussion. I feel that this is a disservice to the forum. I don't feel that I am advocating the curtailment of "free speech" or attempting to limit Tom's method of expression, but I feel that the unnecessary elongation of a topic in this manner is rude and tends to diminish the participation of others. It allows for a single individual to dominate a thread. It is similar to an American Congressional fillibuster ! It isn't breaking any specific rule, however it seems to be very self seeking. Charlie Black Charlie Black

John I appreciate your right to your own opinion. However in this case you seem, at least to me, to be debating something that is not within the area in which your major interests reside. You have dis-evolved to a position in which your only true response is that Charles Black cannot prove a negative. And you are correct ! John stated "....it is impossible to prove that such reactions....are impossible". Yes John ! It certainly is impossible to prove impossibility ! But, I being a very basic person whose mind cannot operate in the stratosphere, am forced to usually disregard the word "impossible" because I realize that down here on earth, it is "impossible" to prove something "impossible" ! I concentrate when trying to solve a problem, on "Probabilities" rather than "possibilities". Due to your semantical concern, you have my permission, if I ever use the word "impossible" (which I seldom do), to change its meaning to be improbable. It is not "impossible" for me to win the Florida Lottery. However the thousands of dollars which over the years I have contributed in my endless quest, was known by myself, even before I became so addicted,.... to be extremely highly improbable. It is "improbable" that lightning will strike the same goal post ten times during one football game......it certainly isn't "impossible". Since I have but a few years to spend on this earth, I feel that I have a much greater chance at achieving my goals if I place my "personal crosshairs" on probability rather than possibility. You see John, I feel that someone, somewhere in this world, may react as JFK is seen to react..... as a result of a bee sting. After all....it is not "impossible". I remain "PROBABLY" Charlie Black

Hello William A very pleasant morning. Caught fish AND missed Tim ! Charlie Black

Hi Frank At least you and I agree with the general physics of the matter. However we apparently interpret JFK's reaction differently. What "I see" when reviewing the film at full speed, is not only the reaction of JFK's head.....BUT his entire body being slammed against the rear seat cushion and then bouncing off. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment, but Dr. David Mantik states (I think in all three Fetzer assassination books), that he also feels that this is too strong a reaction to have been caused by bullet impact. This had been my contention for many years prior. At the risk of being even further redundant, I have stated in many of my prior posts on this subject, that it appears to me, as if a force not unlike a Barry Bonds homerun swing, is "lifting" and pushing his entire body to the rear and left. I suppose that we will have to differ on this point as I interpret the "entire upper body" being violently moved. When I realized that a bullet should not impact with such a force, I could find no other explanation except.....this is when I personally first considered film manipulation. I have long maintained that frames were removed which produced this "undesired" visual effect. The only reason that I have been able to come up with is that, even tho they knew that the removal of these frames would produce an abnormal anomaly, what the "removed frames" depicted was something much more damning than this anomaly. Since they did not realize at that moment, that this film would someday be shown to the world....they chose, what they felt, was the lesser of two evils. So Frank, it isn't that I am this adamant in explaining the laws of ballistics to the forum, but what is beyond and above my physics argument, is my contention that frames have been removed from this film. I appreciate your response and agreement on the physics issue of impact vs. recoil, because until others grasp at least this, my feelings regarding the Z film will not seem plausible to many. Charlie Black

Evan I feel it is ridiculous to continue this as I have been doing so for a number of years. Your statement regarding a victims acceptance of "imminent death" has nothing to do with physics. I know that YOU KNOW beyond ANY doubt, that the impact on a target can be no stronger than the recoil felt by the shooter. This is basic ballistics ! Neither you nor I can ever change this. I as probably you may have, had the opportunity to fire a 6.5mm Manlicher Carcano rifle. This rifle does not have a particularly significant recoil. I have even fired this rifle while resing the butt on my chest. The recoil is not very signifcant. What I see as JFK's reaction, has been produced by something significantly stronger than a MC recoil...it doesn't matter the type of bullet which is shot (round, pointed, wadcutter or hollowpoint), the RECOIL remains the same. Impact force = Recoil force ! This is not rocket science nor does it allow for exceptions. Nor does it have anything to do with the victims mental state. This is the actual physics of ballistics. This also has absolutely nothing to do with someone SURVIVING 13 or more bullet impacts, a .45 cal. to the head or .50 cal. to the chest. The bullet impact force CAN BE NO GREATER than the recoil force. This is all that we should be discussing. Whatever WE SEEM to see as JFK's reaction to impact is caused by something other than force of bullet impact. I am exactly the size of JFK. A Marcano recoil will not move my body regardless of my mental state or regardless if it kills me or not. AGAIN for everyone ! Impact force CANNOT exceed recoil force ! JFK is seen in the film to be much more violently propelled than is possible as a result of a 6.5 mm rifle strike. This cannot be argued without completely ignoring the physics involved in ballistics. There is no sense in talking in circles or about "what ifs". I have simply stated fact that can be confirmed by anyone and everyone. I didn't make up this physical law. It exists and cannot be "Talked Around" by anyone. I really don't care if people choose to believe in "jet effect" or being knocked backward by a bullet impact. Many people who have been shot, tho not seriously injured, CHOOSE to fall because they THINK that they should. The bullet is not knocking them down . JFK's reaction "Was Not Provoked By Thought" ! But "frame excision" of the Z film could certainly provide it ! And that is what I say that it is. This is why I feel that we cannot use the Z film for shot timing or for anything of consequence. This film is what has covered the actual realities of Dealey Plaza. I personally don't care what anyone chooses to believe. But regardless of what you choose, you will not alter the truth, which is simple physics. I have explained this one too many times. Believe whatever makes you happy. However your belief cannot change fact. Charlie Black

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". When I set aside theories of what was happening in the world at this time, which does and will always naturally set forth a great deal of conjecture and speculation, and I focus on the event itself..... What do I truly KNOW ? I don't feel that I KNOW very much more than I did many years ago. I know that at appx. 12:30 CST, in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963, the U.S. President, the Governor of Texas, their wives and two Secret Service men, were driving in an open top convertible limousine, as part of a motorcade travelling thru an area of Dallas named Dealey Plaza, and were headed to a spot mamed the Trade Mart, where they were to have lunch and President Kennedy was to deliver a speech. I know that at some point (no exact location) after the motorcade turned from Houston to Elm Street, that there were a series (number unknown) of gunshots directed toward the limousine by a shooter or shooters unknown, from a location or the exact number of locations unknown. I know that Governor Connally was struck at three different points of his body by an unknown number of bullets. I know that President Kennedy received wounds to the head, tho the number or direction of the shots is unknown, a shallow wound to his upper back believed to have been from a gunshot, though proof of a bullet was never found, and a wound to his anterior throat that was presumed to be, by the Parkland Hospital trauma team, an entry wound of "a something", tho that something was never found. I know that Gov. Connally survived his wounds, but that JFK was pronounced dead at appx. 1:00PM. I know that the body of JFK was illegaly moved from the legal jurisdiction of Dallas Texas by members of the Secret Service at gunpoint, and is believed to have been placed in its coffin on Air Force 1. The body was transported, by some means (exact time unknown) to the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Bethesda Maryland where it arrived at an unknown exact time. I know that the appearance of the body when it arrived at Bethesda was much different in appearance than what was described to be the condition of the body described by the Parkland Trauma Staff, which attended to the wounds and later prepared the remains for shipment. I know that the time of arrival at Bethesda, the method of arrival, the type of casket from which the remains were removed, and the appearance of the wounds are in great dispute.....43 years after the fact. I know that it is widely acknowledged that an incomplete and incompetent "autopsy" was performed. I know that some of the original autopsy notes were illegally burned. I know that some of the autopsy pictures and xrays are said to have disappeared. I know that the President's brain and tissue samples were lost. I know that the developer of the autopsy photographs could not verify them. I also know that in mid-afternoon Dallas, a Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, due to an exact reason unknown, and was later charged with the murder of JFK and a Dallas police officer. I know that LHO had no legal counsel. I know that it is said that "no notes" of his interrogation were taken. I know that a rifle was found on an upper floor of the TSBD which is said to be traceable to LHO. I know of no witness that can identify LHO as the 6th floor gunman, and that paraffin tests indicated that he had not fired a "rifle". I know that the FBI almost immediately proclaimed that LHO was an assassin and for all practical purposes, the investigation was concluded. I know that a Dallas policeman was shot on the afternoon of 11/22/63. I do NOT know that this killing was necessarily associated with the assassination of JFK. I know that Jack Ruby shot LHO....I also know that Chief Justice Earl Warren would not allow Ruby to appear before the Warren Commission, even after Ruby told him that he had important information regarding the assassination. Except for thousands of bits of possible information that could be filled in, this is really what I know of this case....and I knew most of this 30 years ago. I know that many wish to chime in "how about this" or "that" because I cannot write, nor is it necessary in the context of this post, to include certain (most) particulars. The purpose of my writing this is merely to concede what a perfectly executed Coup d' Etat was successfuly carried out and covered. A Coup that has been responsible for a great many of the problems with which the world is currently confronted. That this actually occurred is all that I am absolutely certain of. I also feel that the harm already done can never be altered. Thanks for allowing me to spew, regarding what I really feel regarding the progress of JFK assassination research ! Yes ! My asessment is quite negative ! Charlie Black

Evan & general membership I feel that I should give up on this subject. I have "begged" forum members to do research on this matter, however all that I receive are opinions basd on the speculation that a bullet should violently move the object struck. I have even suggested films that are often available on TV. But rather than anyone bothering to state that they have looked into the matter, I get further "conjecture". Evan Marshall recently stated "...I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles" So have I Evan ! Are you telling me that the persons which you saw struck duplicated the VIOLENT movements which we see in the Z film. SHOW US ! There must be deer hunters on this forum ! Have you seen a deer projected and propelled in the manner of JFK's body ? Of course you haven't because it does not happen . Some blame it upon a tangental strike....others on "exploding" bullets, but the real explanation is..... that it did not and does not happen! You can within your own minds make up any possibility that you care to. What you wont however do, is show me an actual unadulterated film in which a 170 pound animal is propelled and projected as is JFK in the Z film. Anyone can talk in circles ! NO ONE has produced the proof. Killing is common. There are literally thousands of films available on humans and animals being shot. Have any of you seen an animal react as does JFK "in an unaltered film"? I have been speaking of 170 pound animals. But I doubt if you can prove it with "any" reasonably sized animal ! If a few of you do the modest research necessary, you will look at the assassination in a much different light. You will KNOW that what you "seem to see" in JFK's reactions following the "real time" ( not a slow down or frame watching ) playing of Zapruder, after frame Z312,...did not occur.....Unless of course JFK is the only 170 pounder to react in such a way to a hit by a 6.5mm bullet. In some of my prior posts I have referenced sources which may be referred to. This little bit of investigation may be the most important that you will ever do in this case. In any event, I have tired of my own redundancy on this matter. If you don't want to SEE.... continue to "not look"! Charlie Black

I am sorry to say that Tom's last two posts of his already overly repetivive tho obsure theory, is further testament to what I had previously posted. I feel that he has said virtually nothing understandable, relevent or proveable in many years ! Charlie Black

I truly understand the conjecture. I understand that a back brace "might" make some "small" difference. I understand that the validy of the Z film has been "conjectured" to the extreme. BUT what I absolutely cannot understand is the reluctance of almost all forum members to make a brief study of the immediate reactions of larger animals (170 #) to direct gunshot wounds. This is a form of research that could cost no or very little money....and not much time. I know of no films that show men being shot who are wearing a backbrace.......however there is a wealth of films which show men shot, who are carrying 40-60 pound military back packs, which I feel would depict a similar restriction. Even if one doesn't care to look at the gruesome films of soldiers and other humans being killed, there is another alternative. To those of you who have shot adult deer, has ONE of you ever seen one of these animals projected by a bullet impact. For those of you who have not, I am certain that you have an acquaintance who is a hunter that has seen deer shot. When you finally find no evidence of such a violent reaction "ever" being observed..... why would you not concede that JFK's head and body should not react any differently to any other equally sized two or four legged animal. I am not trying to convince anyone that they should take my word for this. But since most here on the forum spend many, many hours investigating all different aspects of this case, I do not understand the reluctance to investigate this one aspect. This one aspect "might" indicate to you that what "seems" to be JFK's reaction to a bullet strike is very likely not that, and is caused by "something else". I am not asking anyone to denounce their religion. I am saying that if you are "researchers", why "neglect" what might be the most important evidence in this case. I keep pleading for this because I would like someone after all these years to prove me wrong. No one has ! The only answer that I get is that the Z film is unalterable beyond human detection. I see human detection that something is wrong. For a short period of time....open your minds...forget about jet effects and backbraces.... and see if you can find proof of such a reaction in any man sized animal that has been shot with a rifle or a pistol. If this reaction is natural..... there should be literally loads of proof which will discount what I have been sermonizing. If you find NONE...what should that indicate? Prove it for yourself....not for me! Charlie Black

The very LAST thing that I want to happen to this thread is to turn it into another "free for all" in regard to validity of the Z film. I will end with one request....If any of you feel that there is legitimacy to anything which I have mentioned in regard to JFK's "filmed reaction" to the "Head Snap"......please do further research and attempt to direct your search to sources "outside" of the forum. If you do not already believe that there is something wrong....please do yourselves a favor and take a Giant Leap toward reality by independently studying the impact of gunshot wounds on animals and humans. After such a study, watch the Zapruder "head shot sequence" only at full speed....... and then make your determination. Amen Charlie Black

For Tom Purvis & All Members I would like to clarify something regarding some critical posts that I have made over a seveal year time span in two different forums in reference to Tom Purvis' Posts. I have never meant a criticism, unless jokingly, as to Tom's character, his patriotism, his service and sacrifice to his country, and to his being a responsible citizen, human being and family man. My criticism, which will no doubt never end, regards his methods of posting....his repetitiveness...the number of his posts in a nearly singular area.... and in general what I perceive to be an attempted "take Over" of a topic. There have been literally "hundreds" of threads which I have participated in, but have felt forced to end participation, only because of the waste of time re re re re re reading the same information over a period of years. There have been occassions when I have had to wade thru five or six of Tom's successive posts in a thread in order to be able to reply. In that I have a "life apart from the forum", I am unable to do all of this re-reading. Particularly that when asked to explain or verify something, he either "bails out" of the topic which he has for all practical purposes ruined...or stated something similar to "you must find out for yourself" ! I feel that this is not only quite improper and "uncultured" behavior, but a terrific waste of both time and space. I have chosen this method of appealing to the "FORUM MODERATORS", because I feel strongly enough regarding Tom's qualities as a decent human being, to NOT TALK BEHIND HIS BACK. To me this is much more a forum disruption than a few harsh words between a few forum members. This isn't rudeness or a lack of culture, but it leads to something IMO much more harmful to the forum. It both disrupts and ends many threads because of the time consuming necessity to constantly re-read, much repeated information. If anyone doubts the validity of what I have stated, pease take "A QUICK LOOK" thru his several thousands of posts. Neither my nor anyone's lack of culture prevents the disemmination of information. This type of problem does and should be dealt with. Sorry Tom But I have meant every word that I said, or I would not have bothered ! Charlie Black

Evan Marshall I have absolutely no problem with our "agreement to disagree" as I have found you to always be quite gentlemanly on this forum. I would like to refer to two points however in your most recent post. I stated that some of the Nazi's prisoners were struck point blank by Mauser RIFLES, as well as others who appear to be shot with 9mm Pistols. My other point being the connection to the spine is moot.....as all the shot humans were connected to their spines. Charlie Black

addendum to my immediately prior post I would greatly respect the courteousy from those of you who have not witnessed personally the shooting of large animals.....or somehow do not recall the films to which I have referred, to please hold your comments until you have done so... as you are very obviously not qualified to intelligently respond. This is one of those few topics in which neither personal opinion nor speculation can carry very much weight. I am not attempting to be rude, but there have been millions of wasted words and "speculations" regarding what I feel to be the most crucial peice of evidence in this entire case. Charlie Black

Hello Evan I acknowledge your police experience and I own two of your books. I do dispute the violent reaction captured in the xtant Zapruder film as typically being assciated with a gunshot (I am not certain however that it was a rifle), and I agree with most ballistics experts with whom I have conferred, this strong a reaction is highly unlikely to have been caused by the strike of any hand held or shoulder fired firearm. Before attempting to dig out some of my old correspondence, I will quickly refer you and all who might be so interested, in the works of both Dr. Mantik and others which you may most easily find in the books ..."Assassination Science"-- "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"---and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". I unlike Bill Miller and a few others on this forum, find these works, along with the work of Jack White (to name but one) to be quite credible. I was looking over "The Goat Shotings" in one of your works....I did not find mention of any reaction similar to what is observed on the "Z" film. It was my understanding that the choice of the use of "goats" was because these animals were thought to replicate the reaction of bullets to those of humans. I have seen "all" forms of larger animals shot with a variety of weapons, and have never observed such a violent natural reaction. I would like to refer you and whoever might be interested, to something which I have on many occassion been critcized by Bill Miller and associates. I feel that you surely have seen depictions on TV's History Channel...Discovery Channel and PBS of films shot in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The films that I am specifically referring to are the ones which usually picture prisoners both standing and kneeling before previously dug "grave pits". They are then shot in the posterior skull with either 9mm Lugers or German Mausers at Point Blank range (only inches from weapon to skull) . In EVERY case these victims fall forward from their standing or kneeling positions into the grave. Not one has displayed anything remotely similar to the reaction of JFK in the extant Zapruder film . Another film which the world was "overly exposed" to a few years back, which I don't feel that anyone has missed, was the horror of a South Vietnamese Officer shooting point blank thru the temple of a, presumed to be, very young Viet Cong. You will notice that although the bullet passes thru his skull....his head is not propelled in ANY direction. Even in TV depictions of Melons being struck with rifle bullets, how many have noticed that although the melon explodes.....the base of the melon usually remains on the table top...not propelled. I have, do, and will continue to maintain that the seeming reactionary propelling of JFK's head and "BODY" could not have been caused by a fired projectile from a weapon smaller than an "artillery piece". Charlie Black

The particles do appear to have come from a glazer or some other very fast and highly frangible bullet. I frankly do not know "exactly" what was available in 1963. What has always most seriously bothered me is the Zapruder film's depiction of the IMPACT. It loks as if JFK is being lifted by something with the force of Barry Bond's baseball bat. This was the primary reason that I initially thought that there was "Z" film alteration or excision of frames. As has been pointed out by Dr. Mantik in several of his theses, this is too violent an impact to have been brought about by a bullet impact. I would also like to refer readers to "Bullet Penetration", by Duncan Mac Pherson, and to several FBI studies which I will have to re-find in order to give you the study number. Bullet impact on animals of the 170 pound variety, are universally explained as having one of these effects: 1) the target is struck and immeiately falls 2) the target is struck and falls within a short time span 3) the target is struck and displays virtually no reaction 4) the target is struck and responds by attacking 5) the target responds and walks or runs away and may later drop as it "bleeds out". The bullet impacted 170 pound animal is never described, when struck by a rifle or pistol round, as being lifted or projected backward. This is a Hollywood creation. I feel that no one is "certain" of the "exact" projectile which struck JFK in the head, but it can reasonably be assured that the violent upward, backward and to the left portrayal, that is seen in the Zapruder film (especially when played at full speed), is the result of of something other than a bullet strike. I strongly feel that THIS is what should be given more attention. Most who have knowledgeably studied the head wound are in agreement that it was caused by a "highly" frangible bullet. Even those who would argue the direction in which the bullet or bullets travelled, do not disagree that it was a highly frangible projectile or projectiles. Most forum members would have no reason to know this, but the study of ballistics tells us that the force of a bullets impact on a target, cannot be greater than the force of the recoil of the weapon upon the shooter. Charlie Black

Hello Tom I appreciate your comment which invites me to "not read your posts". I, even with my intellectual shortcomings, somehow managed to figure this out for myself, years ago on another forum. However, since we unfortunately are both interested it seems, in very similar forum topics, I have chosen not to do this, as I am interested in what is usually some very good input of other forum members. I cannot engage in these threads and simply disregard "your" input, because of the number of posts which you seem to try to force into each thread, which usually are meant to either challenge a response, or by lack of such challenge seem, thru passivity, to accept your ramblings as fact. This in itself isn't particularly bad within itself, but it gives members who are not as conversant with this subject, as are many of the others on this forum, an implication that the more informed members are "in agreement" with some of your decoded "word game" theories, when in fact they not only are not, but are really unsure of what you are attempting to put forth. So Tom....it appears that I am as stuck to you as flypaper ! Charlie Black

Tom Another very ugly bail out. I thought you were "all the way" ! I have never seen anyone that could post so many words with so little meaning. You keep making reference that the forum must be retarded if we think that what you call "word games" is just beyond our comprehension. Have you ever considered that most here are not in search of word games and inner meanings. It takes time to read some of your voluminous posts, that at the end of which, we are required to guess at your meaning......if in fact there is any meaning. If you don't have anything to say that the majority of forum members can comprehend, perhaps you should find a forum that requires membership of only the intelligentsia. Perhaps you just love to type and missed your life's calling ! Charlie Black Perhaps you should be in the Guiness record for the most recorded "bail outs". Or you might consider another hobby, before you get a "streamer"!

I suppose that many of you have "speculated" as have I, regarding the "timing" of this NEW FIND. I take this to be a media sneak preview of what Mr. Bugliosi will no doubt "heavily" weigh on, in his 1600 page forthcoming book, which shall prove to all, the validity of the Warren Report; except possibly for its few insignificant and honest errors. It has begun ! We will be led down those same worn out paths, the purpose of which is to further ensnare the research community in those very time consuming re re re-discussions. Since the only seeming "evidentiary" value of this film seems to be once again "coat bunching".....I cannot fail to wholeheartedly believe that a major point in Bugliosi's work will have to do with this so called "bunching". Many more thousands of pages and millions of words and hours will be wasted on a "not even new TANGENT" that can absolutely prove nothing other than it can waste more time. Time is the conspiracy's greatest ally, and the wasting of researchers time on insignificant matters, is their time proven method. Why will it not work again? We continue to make the exact same mistakes and bewilderingly wonder why we come up with the same answers. Since the passage of time strengthens their cause; and enough waste of it will definitely weaken the ability to PROVE conspiracy.....I feel that "THEY" know that the continous trolling of even the same worn out and rotting bait, will catch a few more of the less knowledgeable, as those that have long studied this issue, die away or give up in disgust. Yes I expect Mr. B to strongly lead us toward the legitimacy of "bunched coats" and possibly bullet riccochet, as he will attempt to slowly and logically "lengthen" the actual time of the firing of the shots, by that quick shot artist Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the same Oswald, that was reported by some of his hunting companions in Russia, to be unable to even hit a still rabbit with a shotgun. I expect that my curiosity will force me to waste probably $60.00 on another "SELL OUT OF AMERICA", by another brilliant "bastion of integrity". After all.....he did win that case which exposed that ultra complex Helter Skelter conspiracy ! If our British forum members play their cards right, they may be able to turn Mr. B. loose on that other genious..... Jack the Ripper ! Charlie Black

Nathaniel In reference to my post #5, YES, I was joking. Or maybe even crying ! Charlie Black