Charles Black

I find it absolutely irrational to think that any semi-educated person, who has read the previous revelations of Gerald Posner, could have anything other than the highest praise for this true patriot of the United States.

After all it was he who very bravely confronted the foaming mad conspiracy theorists and proved to them, that as far as the U.S. government, the U.S. President, the Director of the FBI., the Director of Central Intelligence, the Presidential Commission led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and the HSCA are concerned, this is and has been merely an issue of "Case Closed". He even received the instantaneous and ever continuing praise of all of the Major Media within the U.S.

How can this "Government Made Millionaire" even be remotely considered as an object not worthy of his people's highest praises.

I feel that there is a nationwide lack of gratitude that exists within the U.S. A seeming determination to not know "THE TRUTH". Disgusting !

A psychologist would probably refer to this unhealthy attitude as ACUTE DENIAL !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Since this matches NO U.S. military uniform but has seargent stripes on the arm, I would guess it to be Dallas law enforcement or an invasion by a foreign army.

Actually as I study this, it appears to be the formal dress uniform of the Northwest Ubakistanian

Not Very Secret Police. I had long suspected that they had a role in this dastardly deed !

CharlieBlack

Though this is a "Double Post", I am intentionally not erasing it. I want Tom to read it "twice" !

You should be ashamed of yourself with that last post...at least on THIS forum !

Nearly everyone on this forum knows of the absolutely preposterous string of lies which Marina told and are now acknowledged to be "lies" even by herself.

Yet you expect everyone to believe "HER REAL TRUTH" that Lee sat on the front porch and practiced with

the bolt operation which made him an acknowleged

"MASTER OF THE CARCANO" !

It is getting higher and deeper. A shovel wont get you out of this.....you will need a "John Deere" !

AS I spent a great deal of time in both New Orleans and Dallas in the 1960's, don't launch one of your dissertations regarding "customs in the "Old South" in which nearly every true Confederate made a practice of operating the bolt action of a military rifle in a city neighborhood. It ain't so!

I was also born and bred in the "Old South"......

and this "just ain't so" !

As I certainly can't afford to purchase a John Deere at the moment, I am going to have to depart this thread before I drown in your posts.

Charlie Black

Charlie black

Tom

You should be ashamed of yourself with that last post...at least on THIS forum !

Nearly everyone on this forum knows of the absolutely preposterous string of lies which Marina told and are now acknowledged to be "lies" even by herself.

Yet you expect everyone to believe "HER REAL TRUTH" that Lee sat on the front porch and practiced with

the bolt operation which made him an acknowleged

"MASTER OF THE CARCANO" !

It is getting higher and deeper. A shovel wont get you out of this.....you will need a "John Deere" !

AS I spent a great deal of time in both New Orleans and Dallas in the 1960's, don't launch one of your dissertations regarding "customs in the "Old South" in which nearly every true Confederate made a practice of operating the bolt action of a military rifle in a city neighborhood. It ain't so!

I was also born and bred in the "Old South"......

and this "just ain't so" !

As I certainly can't afford to purchase a John Deere at the moment, I am going to have to depart this thread before I drown in your posts.

Charlie Black

Charlie black

Chuck

I absolutely agree. Tho my or Tom's opinion may have "some" merit, the "expert testimony" of a proven combat sniper should hold the same degree of weight as would be given an acclaimed medical professional, in their prognosis of a medical condition.

Since the "professional" opinion of an ex military sniper definitely does not side with the government position of 43 years, I feel that his thoughts should be given the utmost weight......unless of course one is to believe that Craig's testimony was "purchased" by "rich conspiracy theorists" !

Not to be sacrilegious, but unless an emmisary of God was sighting that Carcano for Oswald.... I feel the shots were undoable by Lee as well as most humans on this earth.

I feel that of all the controversy associated with this case, the belief that LHO made those shots with that rifle, is the most absurd. My opinion only, but considering that no one else has done this with a moving target, on a declining grade at varying speeds....with a weapon even much better than the M.C........why would anyone even dream this absurdity.

I feel that the belief that LHO as the single assassin of JFK, should have stopped diverting research and dicussion on these forums many years ago. EVERYTHING is wrong with the supposition that

LHO fired those killing shots. Literally EVERYTHING

Until most are willing to free themselves of the RELIGION of the Zapruder films virgin birth and of Lee Harvey Oswalds inhuman skills with a rifle, this will no doubt never end....as it has been so planned. I refer to these two aspects of the case as "Religion" for a very sound reason. They are "both based on Faith alone" !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Paul and all

I want to apologize for my "rush to judgement" !

I, being so obsessed with Zapruder, jumped on the assumption that the film in question was the "Z".

I was just informed by a very good source (G Mack)

that I had jumped to conclusions. The film in question was that of Muchmore, and it has been long known that her film was so aired.

Sorry for my error.

Charlie Black

Paul

Thanks for the reply. This is completely new to me.

I wonder if this now brings to question the official number of copies that were said to have been made ?

Charlie Black

FILM

I feel that the decision to release to the public a masterful production or reproduction of a film by agents of the conspiracy,

to seduce the public into believing that the events and induced time sequences, depicted in what is known as the Zapruder film, were Fact rather than a staged Fiction.

This was done so well, that the only information gained from this film strip, is that something dramatic and traumatic seemed to befall both JFK and JBC as they road in an open car thru Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

It not only reveals nothing more than this, but it was a great physchological diversion which by design, was to prove to the world the timing and general probability of their expressed "findings".

The "special effects" were not compelling enough to win for it an Oscar, but were sufficiently compelling to have confused the general public for several decades after its release !

I feel it is this one strip of 8mm film, that has done the most to prevent progressive research.

Zapruder gets my vote !

Charlie Black

Hello Tom

I interpret what Craig is really saying a liitle differently than do you.

I feel that Craig is approaching this from the standpoint that a logical and staight thinking sniper would, if he knew that he and his spotter,

realized that this mission was to both kill and stay alive and free from capture.

The only two things in the mind of such a professional should be blended into one. " From what position am I most likely to acquire a kill that will also allow me a reasonable probability of escape and evasion". I don't do "suicide"!

In my opinion, the North or South knoll areas would best allow this. It would also allow the possibility of two attempted shots, which should not be necessary with the well skilled shooter and the proper weapon.

Ideally, diversionary sounds from the opposite directions would be greatly desirable for both a second possible shot attempt and a better chance for escape.

Even if one is determined to believe that Oswald was a lone gunman, we must not forget that this happened during lunch break. Nothing would have prevented Oswald from leavng the TSBD, retrieving his "pre hidden" weapon, and have had both a better field of fire while being in a much stronger position to escape.

I was never a sniper, however logic would convince me that the 6th floor did not best support my mission....or desire to continue living.

With the only "possible" change being that I could have chosen either knoll.

Charlie Black

Clint Hill on back of limo....90 seconds before assassination....coat bunched up....

What Street was this on?

Charlie Black

Paul

Would you please quote your source....Soviet viewers TV 11/25/63. I have never heard of this !

Charlie Black

Although apparently not many are interested, tho I am very much so, I would like to redirect this thread to what I meant as its more baser roots.

Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be

very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? With this same thought in mind, also please judge what you "truly" believe to be the veracity of the 1964 testimony of Marina Oswald? Do you feel that her statements of Lee practicing with his rifle by aiming at the leaves on trees, as they strolled the baby thru the municipal Park, would go unquestioned? Or how about that had she not physically held the door shut to their bathroom, that Lee would have shot Richard Nixon? Is this what classifies Lee as a mad killer?

This question is not as nearly "off the wall" as many of the questions introduced by the W.C. and it goes directly to the core of why this forum exists 43 years after the fact.

To some this question may seem over speculative and therefore unimportant. I do not, because I contend that this mass of some false testimony (outright lies) and altered evidence was and is the total government stance. It is as unbelievable now as it was in 1964. Yet we are continuing to be led in concentric circles....biting every piece of bait that is "trolled".

Without this very highly questionable intoduction of "EVIDENCE"...what does the prosecution have?

I would very much appreciate your views...in particular those views which are contrary to my "speculations" ! Unless I am oversimplifying...THIS

is the entire case !

Charlie Black

Come on Pat

You know that we are not talking of a "head shot".

We are talking of "head snap" and the violent up, back and to the left movement of JFK's entire body.

Why "divert" the discussion. No one has said that there was no "head shot". What is being refuted is the violent movement of JFK's head and entire body; commonly referred to as "the head snap".

Obviously there was a headshot(s) !

Charlie Black

Newman was somehow coerced or influenced on the afternoon of 11/22 to say JFK "fell back"? Moorman was somehow coerced or influenced a day later to tell the FBI that JFK "sort of jumped"? Who or what influenced them to do this? What was the purpose? It doesn't make any sense.

Hello Ron

It "makes sense" to me that regarding "eyewitness" testimony, I place most value on the most immediate testimony of a witness before other factors have had an opportunity to influence and possibly confuse them.

Charlie Black

This may be considered too speculative to be engaged on this forum.

I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.

If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?

We of course would be dependent on eye and ear witness testimony as had been done in the previous five millenia, and would therefore, according to the generally accepted modern theory, be not very trustworthy.

I often wonder why they even bothered to have judicial trials before the advent of photography !

I of course am inviting a very "speculative" question as the result of my long held belief, that

manipulated film and photographs have been the conspirators greatest (perhaps only) means of diverting and concealing evidence.

I realize that the question is somewhat strange, but I feel that such a discussion might change the perspective of many investigators.

I would appreciate participation....even if only for your amusement.

Charlie Black

SORRY Deleted in the interest of maintaining forum harmony.

Charlie Black

Hello Ron

I feel certain that you know why, when I refer to Dealey Plaza eyewitness testimony, that I make a point to only refer to testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63. The most IMMEDIATE memory, before it has had a chance to be influenced by coercion, innuendo and other social and politcal interests.

The Newmans also changed their testimony "somewhat" on the evening of 11/22 from what they stated immediately after the assassination.

Why do you and some others "prefer" to use "changed testimony" to make a point ? That really shouldn't be posed as a question as the reason is quite obvious! As is the tactic !

Charlie Black

Hello Evan

Exactly ! They were up close....looking directly at the target and reported what every witness reported that made a statement that early. No Hollywood head and body violent reaction. I feel that when this film was altered, they never thought that it would be seen by persons who had witnessed bullet hits.

Charlie Black

Fantastic Jack

It answers so many questions.....and what I find as most significant is that this occurred only two hours after the shooting, and before this testimony would have been influenced by other testimony, hearsay, or "coercion".

It also further verifies NO HEAD SNAP ! What is seen on the Z film did not happen. Regardless of how many "theoretical experts" testify that this film could not be altered successfully .....IT WAS! These ladies reported JFK's body movement's after being shot exactly as reported by the other Dealey eyewitnesses (which reported on the "afternoon of the assassination").

I know that within minutes I am going to be told that Mary and Jean were as mistaken as all of the other witnesses, because the "Z film shows something quite different"! And since we KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter the Z film ....the witnesses are absolutely wrong! It would not matter if there were fifty thousand witnesses, they would all necessarily be wrong.

After all, we know that eyewitnesses are necessarily wrong.....that is why we still do not know who won the Super Bowl !

Charlie Black

Hello Ed

Even tho you are speculating, I feel that a lot of your speculation "could be correct". I have always felt that as a result of some of J.D.'s off the job activities, that his killing "may not" have been associated with JFK. I have been asked in this case by both the WC & HSCA, to believe a lot of less believable coincidences.

Perhaps I have allowed my personal "speculations" too much weight in this aspect of the case. The reason that I made an issue of the time frame which was supplied by the witnesses is that even tho, you agreed that watches wouldn't necessarily have to match......not many people are as aware of time as you seem to be . You "know" that certain of your time pieces are set a certain way, and you are therefore aware of "correct time". My wife and my two sons go by "approximate time". If they see that their watches are within a few minutes of what they feel that the time is....they feel that exact minutes is splitting hairs. They refer to my specific time keeping as being "ANAL".

But in my thinking, since I have never been convinced that Oz pulled the trigger on Tippitt, the time frame is not as important to me. I will also stick by my statement that had their been a trial, that the recorded police radio "log in" would have been the time most accepted in court.

Certainly it would have weighed much more heavily than the other two time references for the reasons previously stated.

But in my opinion, the discrepancies in the eyewitnesses description of the shooter, along with Markham's problem identifying the shooter and the manner in which the "lineups" were conducted, I really feel that the time would not be the major factor. It becomes "THE MAJOR FACTOR" only if Oz is the "only" possible shooter, which of course could never have been proven. It cannot be proven even after the passage of 43 years. I downplay the time because since I feel that the shooter "was not" Oz,

the time that it "would have taken" for the walk is moot. Oz may have given an accounting of his time in his unrecorded interrogations, that was not known to the public. Hoover said within hours that "they had their man".

This thread is no doubt maddening to those who tend "not" to speculate. However, we are speculating because we have so few absolutes.

My bottom line is that I not only do not know the time of the shooting, but the identity of the shooter was never clear. This is another discussion, tho interesting, could be carried forward endlessly and still yield no factual results.

Charlie Black

The length of time and the treatment which Nosenko recived as an international guest of the CIA, would be unimagineable to most.

The only thing that I can offer is that I find it

impossible to even consider that the OZ was not thoroughly debriefed at both ends. I feel certain that the KGB was no doubt listening "live" to his comments in the U.S. embassy/consulate?

I feel that even were he absolutely identified as a bonafide American spy, that they would still toy with him. It is difficult for me to believe that they felt that he was not "worth the effort".

We are so prone to think in a conventional manner that we are assured that he was debriefed by "the Count".....which he probably was. But it is very possible that he was first debriefed by a U.S. asset while he was still in the Soviet Union.

Charlie Black

J. Raymond

I don't know why this seems so important to you but the evidence which I am referring to and that I feel would have been accepted would have been the record of the "call in" that an officer was down.

It is apparent that the only instances in which the law wishes to even accept "eyewitness" testimony is when the testimony favors their cause.

Do you really believe that eyewitness timepieces are tuned to the exact minute or three and not given even considerably less credibility than eyewitness testimony? I personally don't believe that Oz was there at 1:08 or at 1:15.

In times of great stress, often the passage of time becomes quite questionable....with or without a watch.

Charlie Black

PS I would bet that mine and my wife's timepieces almost never agree....even if they were set by the same standard.

J. Raymond

A lack of contradictory evidence proves nothing and needs not to, as their is no certifiable evidence that the shooting occuured at 1:08 or 1:13. If there was, we would still not be discussing this. Whether or not there was a trial may have been of no consequence. Were their a trial, I don't doubt that the police record would have been weighted heavier than the personal timepieces of the two civilians.

However, as I have stated before, I feel that there is no evidence that LHO shot anyone in his entire life..... other than himself. And he did not even do that particularly well !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Hello John

I wish you and your family our prayers for the strength which will be needed in this most trying of times. I agree with you more than I could ever express regarding the necessity of health care.

My Mother, who up until her last days was willing to so often even "blindly support" me, passed last week after a long and painful illness. Even with Medicare for the elderly, which we do have here, it was a very long, tearfully trying and very expensive affair. I too will praise Hospice for the care and empathy which they provided to both my Mother and my family. As a matter of fact, one telephoned me last night and sincerely asked if their was anything that she could assist me with.

The health care efforts in this country have sadly not progressed. As a matter of fact I mentioned on another forum, a very awakening experience a few weeks ago, which occurred while I was having a prescription filled at the druggist. Two elderly gentlemen ahead of me "both" asked that their individual prescriptions be only half filled. I though it was strange but did not give it much thought until later while driving home.... it

finally entered my mind, the "why" of it! I suppose these separate gentlemen were forced to make what to them may have been not a unique decision. They were no doubt forced to make the decision, in order to stay alive, whether they should buy food or drugs. I found this an outrage.

Later that same evening, I was watching two talking heads on the evening news, discussing whether we should or should not spend hundreds of billions of dollars, to remain in Iraq and kill some more people. I almost became physically ill. We have no doubt been killing millions of our own by refusing to spend a penny here on the poor and aged.

It certainly seems as if we have very misguided values.....if we have any at all.

I won't go on. Again I do send my families prayers for you and yours.

Charlie Black

At some point in the past, I remember documenting that several members of the W.C. thought Helen to be a complete loon.

Charlie Black

I'm sure the views of W.C. members are treated here with all the respect they deserve. If Mrs. Markham was a loon to them it was because she was QUITE CERTAIN that the murder happened at 1.07 --1.08. The same WC members ignored TF Bowley because he was loony enough to be equally certain that it was exactly 1.10 when he arrived, after the gunman had fled.

These WC members knew quite well that if Markham & Bowley were correct about the time (and no witness ever contradicted them, as best I recall) then someone other than Lee Oswald was the cold-blooded murderer of JD Tippit.

Reading Markham's complete testimony is all that is necessary for more persons than the WC to call her a loon. She repeatedly disputed her own testimony.

There is no reason to believe that her testimony regarding the time was any more credible than anything else that she said. NO ONE can verify what exact time this occurred is why we are still discussing it. Is it incredible that we don't know the exact time, when we are not even certain of the direction that the shooter was walking? I don't believe that Oswald was the shooter either, but it won't be proven by any testimony that we have so far heard from anyone.

Frankly, I don't even believe that Oz returned to his room. I think that we have testimony of a number of loons.

Charlie Black