Charles Black

And now we have Ashton Gray, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who in his second career became the worlds foremost authority on the tracheotonomy procedure, now attempting, no doubt with trusty tape measure in hand, to explain to us the square footage of Trauma Room 1. That infamous "LITTLE CLOSET" in which the Parkland Trauma and "Murder" Specialists" did their "dastardly deed". The diminutive size of Trauma Room One and the number of staff and personnel present, can best be compared to the contents of a sardine can. It was in this madhouse "little closet" that the "Parkland Trauma and Murder Team" were able to puncture the President's throat unnoticed. A miniature scalpel was used since the confines of the space did not allow for the use of full sized medical implements.

What most surprises me however, is how the Warren Comission failed to include as an advisor, Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Ashton Gray, "M.D." !

They truly deprived themselves a source of deep insight and understanding of all "worldly matters" and possibly an understanding of the world beyond!

I suppose the Comission later realized that they had realy "blown it" ! Perhaps it is only hindsight that allows us to realize how well that he would have fit in with their type of investigation.

Charlie Black

Hello Tom

I suppose that it should be pretty evident to forum members that I say what I truly believe and I am not lobbying for support from any of them.

My support of you and your military service was something that is within me and just came out.

As much as I am in disfavor of our President and current administration, I will defend to my dying breath the honor of those who have and do currently serve !

Keep up your fight TOM. I respect it tho I disagree with some of your points.

Charlie

Ashton Gray

I am forced to disagree with "one" portion of Chuck's post. He referred to you as "intelligent"!

Regardless of what your educational credentials may or may not be, I feel you to be "THE" most ignorant individual on this forum. You camouflage your total ignorance and inability to absorb the actual facts in this case, with a much undeserved arrogance.

I sincerely believe that your motivation for participating on this forum is solely to mislead, and to direct practical research away from factual matters, and toward ridiculous and time consuming tangents such as, "THE PARKLAND TRAUMA AND ASSASSINATION TEAM OF LIARS INCOMPETENTS AND MURDERERS".

I personally believe, although I claim to have no proof, that your participation here, and your practice of misguiding discussions toward infintessimal tangents, is planned and has nefarious intent. I see you constantly attempting to enter contrary doctrine, some of it having no factual reference, into those FEW AREAS in which the majority of forum members are in general agreement. Yes! I feel that this is done purposely for the sole purpose of stymying progress.

I also today found a tremendous amount of fault in your attempt to belittle and degrade Tom Purvis.

I have no idea of what Tom's military rank was, but your referral to him as "PFC" Purvis should have been very obvious to all that it was "meant" to degrade...although I find nothing degrading or dishonorable among hundreds of PFC's with whom I have had personal contact.

Who the hell are you? Major General Ashton Gray ?

What has "YOUR" role been in the defence of your country ? I have found your comments to be as despicable as I find your general attitude toward nearly everything which you approach.

What little you know of this case was apparently quickly learned, as you have none of the deeper insight of those who have studied this case in earnest. I am calling you a fraud. I am also calling you a coward as a result of maliciously attacking "individuals" as you are protected by the space which a forum allows you.

I find you with no redeeming characteristics !

Charlie Black

Thank you John

A very informative response.

I hope that this thread will be well read and studied. A majority of forum members do not know, primarily because they have never been involved with bullet wound ballistics, of the various possibilities which bullets of differing sizes and energy might produce within a skull....also that the exact angle of entry plays a significant role in the type of wound which is inflicted.

We are dealing with so many variables, that true experts in this field are stymied. Some of these complex problems include...the number of bullets which struck....the exact strike angle....the size of the bullet.....the force of the bullet...which bullet struck first and where did this bullet strike...the type of bullet / bullets (frangible, semi frangible, jacketed )....and many other unknowns.

We however of course have been forced to work with forged or altered photographs and xrays.....a brain which disappeared (the only brain of a "Head of State" to DISAPPEAR since the beginning of time)...

drastically conflicting testimony of "expert witnesses" at two medical centers...a burned original autopsy report...an un-sectioned brain ( before it later disappeared)....the inability of "medical experts" to trace bullet paths...disappearing bullet fragments etc.

Not to mention an 8mm assassination film that depicts victim movements which medical experts claim are not the result of a bullet strike or strikes.

Involving the wounds to both JFK and JBC, the only CERTAINTIES are that they were both struck by an unknown number of missiles....most striking at unknown angles...of unknown caliber...by an unknown number of shooters...firing from unknown locations

...firing weapons of unknown manufacture...from unknown distances...in an uncertain time frame and an uncertain shot order...from weapons unknown to be or not to be be sound supressed.

We also know that since absolutely NOTHING captured on 8mm film answers any of these questions, it has produced what I believe to be the MOST "unbelievable" of hundreds of very nearly inconceivable COINCIDENCES.

My very personal opinion, and I can't substantiate it, is that any of you who, are and have been, dependent on the Z film to provide you answers that will solve this "mystery?", had best not quit your day jobs.

My apologies for expandng this topic. It was not my original intention. Occasionally, passion overcomes me !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

an even bigger problem is that we don't know near as much about ballistics as we often think we know. I've seen any number large caliber handguns glance of the skull and ride around the outside under the skin.

evan marshall

www.stoppingpower.net

www.marshallsshootingcenter.com

Hello Evan

I have two of your books and often refer to them.

Yes, bullets do some strange things. I even heard of a 158 gr. .38 SP. actually bouncing off someones forehead with no penetration.

I imagine it did leave a whopper of a headache !

Charlie Black

Ashton

I cannot decide whether you are truly denser than wet dirt or whether your thinking is completely convoluted.

You seldom if ever express any CERTAINTY !

Please now...this is too much

You state "there is zero compelling or dipositive evidence that the head shot had to have originated anywhere other than from where the CERTAIN back shots originated " RIDICULOUS

I could say there is no compelling........that the throat shot originated anywhere other than from where the frontal head shot originated. But WHY would I want to say such a stupid thing.....just for the hell of it? That is what you did !

FROM WHAT SOURCE do you derive "that the throat wound was not caused by any projectile whatsoever....." You have apparently lost your marbles or you believe most members of this forum to be stupid, insane, or very drunk !

ANOTHER BEAUTY---A PRIZE WINNER

".....positing a shooter location for the head shot other than the one from which the two certain back wounds originating is wandering far."

Ashton methinks that you have possibly wandered too far from your bottle....or your meds !

Why do you repeatedly post nonsense and refer to it as fact and certainty?

Charlie Black

I think it would be a great mistake for anyone to take from Mr. Hunt's wild ride that he was an evil man. He undoubtedly told the truth much of the time. His "you can't handle the truth" attitude the rest of the time was something he learned from above. He was just more honest about it. While his "LBJ might have done it" farewell might have been to sell books, it might also represent his final judgment on both the assassination and his career in public service. While men like Hunt were conditioned to believe they were fighting the great evil--communism--as often as not they were merely helping corrupt politicians get elected. Hunt came to understand this after Watergate. He mentioned previously that LBJ used the CIA to spy on Goldwater. While one might use this to insist Hunt's "truth-telling" was limited to anti-Democrat "truth-telling," one should also remember Hunt's comments in "Give Us This Day". While most CIA apologists insist that Kennedy got scared and canceled the second air strike, and this doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion, Hunt's attitude is surprising. He points out that Kennedy asked Cabell if the second strike was absolutely necessary, and that Cabell said "NO." He blames Cabell for the failure. He also points out that, after it was clear the brigade needed more air support, Kennedy authorized a second strike with U.S. jets flying cover. Unfortunately, someone forgot to synchronize watches and, well, you know, it ended up being a suicide mission...

Men like Hunt are complicated. When we attempt to put them in evil bad guy boxes we do the truth, and ourselves, a disservice.

You're joking right???? Hunt "told the truth much of the time"? I'd ask you to name just one time...but I know where that would lead. A bit naive is an understatement. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however, I do not think it's shared on this forum.

Dawn

I can name one time that Howard Hunt told the truth.

As The New York Times notes in its obituary today, Hunt served as an intelligence officer in China during World War II.

Soon after I met Hunt in 1970, he told me of his wartime service. He and a few other intelligence officers were able to infiltrate behind the Japanese lines. One of the officers was captured. Hunt and the others, vastly outnumbered, had to remain hidden while they listened in agony to the screams of their fellow officer as the Japanese flayed his skin while he was alive. When Hunt finished recounting this horrific story to me, there was tears in his eyes. His sorrow and frustration at what happened still burned within him.

RIP, Howard Hunt.

RIP, Howard Hunt ? ? ?

Tears or no tears.....How would you have the slightest idea that his Japanese story is true?

How would anyone know what he "really believed" about LBJ playing a part in a conspiracy ? As a matter of fact, I don't think that he had any "beliefs" regarding the assassination....I feel that he had the facts....and he died with them as all good little spies do!

How do you define where smoke and mirrors end? Smoke and mirrors were his life..his career !

How do you know that he publicly EVER told the truth and was merely not doing his job? Just because he did "hard time".... that does not necessarily sever intelligence connections.

I understand that he was well paid for his "hard time" !

I don't believe his whereabouts on 11/22/63 can be proven!

I would doubt anything that I thought this man wanted me to believe !

Charlie Black

Thank you John

A very informative response.

I hope that this thread will be well read and studied. A majority of forum members do not know, primarily because they have never been involved with bullet wound ballistics, of the various possibilities which bullets of differing sizes and energy might produce within a skull....also that the exact angle of entry plays a significant role in the type of wound which is inflicted.

We are dealing with so many variables, that true experts in this field are stymied. Some of these complex problems include...the number of bullets which struck....the exact strike angle....the size of the bullet.....the force of the bullet...which bullet struck first and where did this bullet strike...the type of bullet / bullets (frangible, semi frangible, jacketed )....and many other unknowns.

We however of course have been forced to work with forged or altered photographs and xrays.....a brain which disappeared (the only brain of a "Head of State" to DISAPPEAR since the beginning of time)...

drastically conflicting testimony of "expert witnesses" at two medical centers...a burned original autopsy report...an un-sectioned brain ( before it later disappeared)....the inability of "medical experts" to trace bullet paths...disappearing bullet fragments etc.

Not to mention an 8mm assassination film that depicts victim movements which medical experts claim are not the result of a bullet strike or strikes.

Involving the wounds to both JFK and JBC, the only CERTAINTIES are that they were both struck by an unknown number of missiles....most striking at unknown angles...of unknown caliber...by an unknown number of shooters...firing from unknown locations

...firing weapons of unknown manufacture...from unknown distances...in an uncertain time frame and an uncertain shot order...from weapons unknown to be or not to be be sound supressed.

We also know that since absolutely NOTHING captured on 8mm film answers any of these questions, it has produced what I believe to be the MOST "unbelievable" of hundreds of very nearly inconceivable COINCIDENCES.

My very personal opinion, and I can't substantiate it, is that any of you who, are and have been, dependent on the Z film to provide you answers that will solve this "mystery?", had best not quit your day jobs.

My apologies for expandng this topic. It was not my original intention. Occasionally, passion overcomes me !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Thank you John

A very informative response.

I hope that this thread will be well read and studied. A majority of forum members do not know, primarily because they have never been involved with bullet wound ballistics, of the various possibilities which bullets of differing sizes and energy might produce within a skull....also that the exact angle of entry plays a significant role in the type of wound which is inflicted.

We are dealing with so many variables, that true experts in this field are stymied. Some of these complex problems include...the number of bullets which struck....the exact strike angle....the size of the bullet.....the force of the bullet...which bullet struck first and where did this bullet strike...the type of bullet / bullets (frangible, semi frangible, jacketed )....and many other unknowns.

We however of course have been forced to work with forged or altered photographs and xrays.....a brain which disappeared (the only brain of a "Head of State" to DISAPPEAR since the beginning of time)...

drastically conflicting testimony of "expert witnesses" at two medical centers...a burned original autopsy report...an un-sectioned brain ( before it later disappeared)....the inability of "medical experts" to trace bullet paths...disappearing bullet fragments etc.

Not to mention an 8mm assassination film that depicts victim movements which medical experts claim are not the result of a bullet strike or strikes.

Involving the wounds to both JFK and JBC, the only CERTAINTIES are that they were both struck by an unknown number of missiles....most striking at unknown angles...of unknown caliber...by an unknown number of shooters...firing from unknown locations

...firing weapons of unknown manufacture...from unknown distances...in an uncertain time frame and an uncertain shot order...from weapons unknown to be or not to be be sound supressed.

We also know that since absolutely NOTHING captured on 8mm film answers any of these questions, it has produced what I believe to be the MOST "unbelievable" of hundreds of very nearly inconceivable COINCIDENCES.

My very personal opinion, and I can't substantiate it, is that any of you who, are and have been, dependent on the Z film to provide you answers that will solve this "mystery?", had best not quit your day jobs.

My apologies for expandng this topic. It was not my original intention. Occasionally, passion overcomes me !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Hello Tom

I share with you the same sentiments regarding my recollections during this period. What I remember is factual, tho my time frame is sometimes off. What I could have sworn to that occurred on a Christmas Day, was recently corrected by several who also shared the experience, that it was in fact Thanksgiving. I had believed it was Christmas for probably 30 years. My facts were dead center, but the date was incorrect.

Charlie Black

Hello John

Tho the thought of murder entered my mind, I do not feel that intelligence was concerned that this man, who was "a professional xxxx and disinformationist"

as well as a mystery book author for over a half century, would have spilled "the wrong beans" !

His interviews, in my opinion, would truly have been "classic misdirections" made interesting with the insertion of some interesting, but unimportant, semi truths.

Although he had on occasion thratened disclosure of truth, it was well played extortion by someone who was KNOWN to hold, probably well hidden truths. I feel that they were afraid of how these "truths" may have been hidden, and were afraid to eliminate him..... or they would have done so in the 1970's.

This individual was a high placed CIA man who may not have only done away with his wife....but with the exception of Richard Nixon and GHW Bush are the only persons of proper age, to "claim" to have not known where they were on the day of the JFK assassination. These three were "Good Company".

I have spoken with some persons, with very limited schooling, and who might be considered somewhat "special", that knew exactly where they were on 11/22/63.

Yet three high ranking government officials did not! And quite a few others are unable to PROVE their whereabouts.

As I stated in another recent post, it would take more than 26 additional volumes to explain the enigma of the Warren Commission.

The November 22, 1963 Coup d' Etat was the greatest and most successful in the history of mankind.

Although all of the major bases of this excercise are and have been well known, world wide; no one has nor will be able to prosecute this crime that has and still does affect billions of people.

The perpretrators have been, are currently, and will continue to laugh in the face of the entire world.

Through all of the PROVEN outright lies and obvious distortion....it remains as probably the greatest, most costly, most enduring and enslaving Coup, in the History of all mankind.

When the forthcoming totality of the results of this event are tallied, I personally feel that these results will indicate that this was THE required major step in the elimination of the possibility of people to ever be truly "self ruled", the elimination of the middle class, and mass enslavement .........which was only made possible by the complacency of millions / billions of people !

Knowing it does not enable us to even imply that

we "Have nothing to lose but our chains"! I am afraid that we are not "chained"...but bolted !

Sorry to have sermonized....but I truly am in deep mourning as I don't think that our political "Resurrection" is any longer possible.

Despite all, we have what I consider "IDIOTS", attempting to find OTHER IDIOTS, to whom they can espouse their sub human intellectual theories of an insane single gunmen, that with the help of some several million COINCIDENCES, murdered a man of whom he was jealous, because his own long life of 24 years, had not been successful, and he was also not as handsome as John Kennedy.

Yet I am stupid enough to, for many years, have wasted thousands of hours of my limited life, engaged

in discussions with either those who are insane, or must obviously be in the employ of the decendents of the conspirators.

THEY must not be what I refer to as IDIOTS...since they have certainly beaten hell out of me.

Charlie Black

Hello John

Am I reading the depiction correctly that "this bullet" entered the left frontal area, travelled thru the brain and fractured from the interior of the skull, the rear parietal area, blew a section of the parietal skull outward, caused other "egg shell type skull fractures, and then deflected and remained in the brain?

If this is true, it simulates the behavior of a small caliber low energy bullet such as a .22 cal LR., which is extremely deadly in head wounds, because it bounces arond within the skull without emerging, like a "pin ball", and causes massive internal damage.

The primary reasons that I am asking are twofold:

1) The bullet depicted appears to be much larger than a .22 cal.

2) It is likely that a larger caliber, higher energy bullet would have either a) exited the skull

or fragmented within the skull leaving many fragmented particles within the lacerated brain.

Thanks

Charlie Black

Hello Jack

By my records, if I get one more wrong, I will qualify as an "ACE".

I feel about as successful as the Kamikaze pilot who flew a record 27 missions !

Thanks for the info.

Charlie Black

Not much caring whom I might offend with this post, my only thoughts are that another lying, cheating, blackmailing, murdering, conspirator and traitor is dead. My only remorse is that he was never placed under hostile interrogation !

Regarding his fiances, does anyone believe that this man died destitute?

Charlie Black

Hello Pat

I wondered why I couldn't recall any testimony of this "large missile fragment"....I thought that "senility" had finally taken up residence with me.

In that it is Review Board testimony, that would explain it, as I have always placed highest credence on testimony given during the nearest time frame to 12:30 CST on 11/22/63.

As a matter of fact, I feel that in all instances in which I have referred to Parkland testimony and that at Bethesda, I have referenced that I am speaking only of that testimony given on 11/22. There was too much coercion and pressure placed on both staffs at later dates. I extend much credit to those however who did not waiver.

Charlie Black

I have long realized that the chances of this issue ever coming to trial are non-existant, and even the chance of a G. Jury hearing are nearly so. I accept this in my mind as "fact".

I have very little knowledge of the implementation of the law and of judicial proceedings in general.

My question (actually two questions)

1) Is it judicially possible to "challenge" the findings of a body such as the Warren Commission ?

I am going to keep this very short as I am certain that most of you are aware of many severely criticised aspects of this hearing ie : the deliberate exclusion of witnesses such as Special Agents Siebert & Oneal (sp?)...Admiral Burkley...

and an ad infinitum naming of dozens / hundreds of others.

Also the "interogative tactics" of the Commission and its interrogators. These certainly would not have stood up in a court of law.

Also the dtermination that certain eye and ear witness testimony was necessarily wrong because it did not match those elements of "evidence" which they (the Commission) found "MORE LIKELY" !

As I said, I don't know if there is any legal precedent for such an action, but I would like to.

2) Another question that I have considered for quite some time....Is it possible for the State of Texas, in absentia, try in a court of law, Lee Harvey Oswald, for the "Attempted Murder of the Govenor of Texas" ? Is there a statute of limitations in Texas for "attempted murder" ? Also is it legal within the state of Texas to conduct an "in absentia" trial ?

If possible, these results would certainly make great strides toward proving "conspiracy" in the murder of JFK !

Charlie Black

Ashton

I find your explanation of the back wound quite credible, I cannot however dismiss that CE 399 could have been reported in the mass confusion as a fragment. However my real opinion, is and always has been, that CE 399 was a very stupid and ill conceived "plant", and that Custers testimony is absolutely correct.

I was almost thrilled that I was "nearly" able to agree with an entire post of yours !

ALAS

Your statement of "...it is nearly impossible that the throat wound was the result of any projectile going in any direction........................." IS SUPPORTED BY NOTHING CREDIBLE ! I feel that this incident was one of the very few "credible" points in the ridiculous Zapruder film.

I think that it is time to move on from the "Silenced Parkland Trauma Team ASSASSINS" !

Although I agree that at times it is a very difficult task, we must actually "Believe" that a "few" of the things which we see pictured are exactly what they seem to be...ie JFK being struck in the anterior throat with "some kind" of projectile. And the report of the Parkland Staff (on the afternoon of 11/22/63) that the President suffered an entrance wound in the mid region of the anterior thoat.

Even in as ridiculous a conspiracy as this, a few things "are" exactly as they appear !

Charlie Black

Hello Chuck

I of course totally agree and wish to thank you for the ONLY response.

This thread was not meant to be facetious. For those who have in detail read and paid any attention to the methods employed by the Warren Commission "interrogators", to induce "only the answers desired", what I posited is in NO WAY, far fetched.

In my opinion at least, it is more sensible than some of the "recorded" actual interrogations. Do you wonder what was being discussed during those very numerous times when they "ordered" that certain discussions take place only if not "recorded"?

Do these deliberate periods of "no recording" indicate "something" that should not have taken place ?

I wonder what opinion that a G.Jury would have expressed if they were asked only to comment on the tactics of the interrogators?

I don't understand how "anyone", not cognitively impaired, cannot judge this "Commission" as an absolute fraud. I further believe that most would also agree that it was "a POORLY CONDUCTED fraud !

The deeper that one becomes involved with this, the more unbelievable it is, that ANYONE, can IN ANY WAY, not label this as probably the greatest fraud ever imposed on a "free thinking" society.

There is SO MUCH wrong in these 26 volumes, that it would take another 26 volumes to enumerate them.

The "Report" itself, is the only evidence needed to prove conspiracy.

Charlie Black

Following the precedent apparently set forth by the Warren Commission, I would like to ask a question

"Arlen style".

Ladies and gentlemen, in an attempt to further understand the wounds to Gov. Connally, may I ask you to first assume that what has become known as the "Magic Bullet", was either never found or was proven NOT to have caused the wound in the Governors thigh. Might the missile which caused the Governors thigh wound have been something other than what caused the Governors chest wound? Under the same assumption, can we further assume that if the former is possible, is it also not possible that the same can be said for the Governors wrist wound? Just as a further consequence, am I incorrect that I might therefore conclude that the Governors three separate wounds, "could" have been caused by three sparate weapons...possibly even of different calibers? We of course in our assumptions here, would have to thereby allow for the possibility that the number of shots, three, which we "presumed" to have been fired, is in error, as there must have been more than three. Again, under this same assumption, we would be forced to conclude that since more than three shots were fired, this does not meet the timing requirements of all shots having been fired by Mr. Oswald. It would seem then that there is a possibility that the timing depicted in the Zapruder film is incorrect. If this were all true, I ask you then.....Is it not within the realm of possibility that the Zapruder film is not Genuine?

Charlie Black

Finally Mark

I cannot definitely dispute that he may have "owned the rifle at some point".

My assertion was that there is no "proof" that he in fact owned, on 11/22/63, "any" rifle which was found in the TSBD on 11/22/63.

I feel that there is very good reason to believe my "speculated" sale of a rifle as I stated in my original thread. It can provide answers to many questions and in my thinking makes use of some "good planning".

Charlie Black

Very compelling !

An update almost these three decades later, would make it even moreso.

I once thought that the government only "supposed" the masses to be quite ignorant.

Now, they are "most certain" so ! And so am I !

I have been probably most surprised by the "density" that is becoming ever more evident on this forum. When I discovered this forum three years ago, it seemed like a breath of fresh air.

It now seems to have degraded into more of a gladiatorial forum where the participants have been seeking the jugular.....not for enlightenment.... but more like bloodlust. I feel that we have been ever so slowly but constantly infiltrated by a contingent that has done a commendable job of disrupting unity and harmony, and creating some pretty ridiculous and infintessimal tangents, that are defended primarily by circular logic.

Divide and Conquer is as sound a principle and practice as has ever been implemented.

Charlie Black

Mark

Please pardon my ignorance, but you are apparently on an intellectual level so far above me, that I really have no idea of WHAT you just posted or WHY you posted it.

I would appreciate a much lower level explanation by either you or anyone else who might assist me.

You merely, in my thinking, posted a negative..... with absolutely no backing. With what type of person do you usually correspond that would find your "non-reponse" of any significance ?

You brilliantly stated "....Oswald did own a rifle.

That's my leap."

What does this have to do with what I proposed?

You followed with.....

" This is what I mean by leaps of logic".

What "leap of logic" ?

And then you informed me......"You're making an assumption based on a theory which is based on a hunch which is based on a series of hypotheses"

If you really know what you are talking about, please explain to this poor old country boy.

And then...."you are trying to connect dots that cannot be connected".

In your response, which was your most assertive statement (I think), you stated "OSWALD DID OWN A RIFLE".

Most on this forum would probably agree with that.

But please inform me as well as anyone interested, how you know that "Oswald did own a rifle" on November 22, 1963 ?

If I am not mistaken, I was "inferring" that there is more than a good chance that he DID NOT!

Do you really mean that you did not understand this?

There are no clear lines of facts in this case in which "the dots CAN be connected".

If there were, I would not be wasting my time answering your "brilliant" assertions !

Charlie Black

Charlie,

I'm finding your posts kind of weird so please bear with me. You stated that you believe it's possible that LHO did not own a rifle at all, correct?

Charlie says: LHO might not have owned a rifle at all.

Right?

I think this is silly. I believe he did own a rifle, based on lots of available evidence.

I find your thesis faulty.

I believe that in hoisting the theory that LHO did not own a rifle, you are making a great leap.

Got that?

Mark

You no doubt are illiterate, a fool, or an exhibitionist that doesn't mind showing your ass to the entire world ?

You are probably the only person on this entire forum that could not grasp "that", which I stated, three separate times. For the fourth time....JUST FOR MARK....I stated that there is no proof that Oswald ownned on 11/22/63, the MC Rifle found in the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Is there anyone on this forum, other than Mike, that does not understand what I repeatedly stated and in detail explained my theory / speculation in my opening thread ?

Mark since you seem to be very fond of the word "leaping", perhaps you should LEAP into a reading comprehension class !

Charlie Black

Mark

Please pardon my ignorance, but you are apparently on an intellectual level so far above me, that I really have no idea of WHAT you just posted or WHY you posted it.

I would appreciate a much lower level explanation by either you or anyone else who might assist me.

You merely, in my thinking, posted a negative..... with absolutely no backing. With what type of person do you usually correspond that would find your "non-reponse" of any significance ?

You brilliantly stated "....Oswald did own a rifle.

That's my leap."

What does this have to do with what I proposed?

You followed with.....

" This is what I mean by leaps of logic".

What "leap of logic" ?

And then you informed me......"You're making an assumption based on a theory which is based on a hunch which is based on a series of hypotheses"

If you really know what you are talking about, please explain to this poor old country boy.

And then...."you are trying to connect dots that cannot be connected".

In your response, which was your most assertive statement (I think), you stated "OSWALD DID OWN A RIFLE".

Most on this forum would probably agree with that.

But please inform me as well as anyone interested, how you know that "Oswald did own a rifle" on November 22, 1963 ?

If I am not mistaken, I was "inferring" that there is more than a good chance that he DID NOT!

Do you really mean that you did not understand this?

There are no clear lines of facts in this case in which "the dots CAN be connected".

If there were, I would not be wasting my time answering your "brilliant" assertions !

Charlie Black

I have never been able to comprehend "why" Jack and "Bobby" would have chosen, very early after taking office, to take a 180 degree reversal of what "Joe"

may have advised. Bobby, as I understand, became Attorney General primarily because of Joe's prodding and insistance. My thinking has ALWAYS been that the issues were not those most commonly believed. What I think (only speculation) occurred, was that the MOB "did not" supply the support to which they had agreed. After this was realized.....

it was "this betrayal" which resulted in the immediate wrath of Joe, Jack and Bobby. Nothing else has ever made much sense to me, as it would make no political sense make war on elements that, thru labor unions and other organizations, would wield a great deal of political power. My personal reasoning is that if the Kennedy's felt that they had won the first election, despite this betrayal,

they were not greatly worried about the next.

I have looked with a great deal of skepticism, in certain areas involving Judith Exner, Sam Giancanna, and certain mob lawyers and relatives of the Giancanna family. IMHO, we are dealing mostly with hearsay that was made known for reasons that were not in the interest of solving the JFK Assassination. A Mob and Castro "Red Herring" was introduced because it was much easier to persuade lilly white Americans, that it was not THEIR GOVERNMENT, but only dark, greasy foreign trash,

that would have been capable of such a horror.

Why is this different than what the Nazis so successfuly implemented in their annihilation ?

I realize that the mob was allied with the CIA in the attempted overthrow of Castro. However I feel most strongly, that this certainly was not an effort made in an earnest attempt to aid the U.S. government.....but was their best method for achieving their financial reinstatement in Cuba.

Although it should be apparrent to even the dimmest, that the Mob strongly supported any effort to eliminate the Kennedy's, for obvious reasons......

I feel that Mob involvement in the actual assassination was not present. They were needed for NOTHING ! Those at the top echelons of U.S. government, agencies and military, had any asset in the world at their disposal. Why would they risk direct involvement with free mouthed braggarts over which they had no true control.

In spite of the flak which I expect from this next statement.....I believe that neither Mafiosi nor Cubans were "needed" and therefore, for many reasons not used.

I believe that this Coup d' Etat was born, bred, financed, and entirely carried out at the direction of the highest power levels of both money and government that existed in the U.S.

This is why it is UNSOLVED !

Charlie Black

I have never been able to comprehend "why" Jack and "Bobby" would have chosen, very early after taking office, to take a 180 degree reversal of what "Joe"

may have advised. Bobby, as I understand, became Attorney General primarily because of Joe's prodding and insistance. My thinking has ALWAYS been that the issues were not those most commonly believed. What I think (only speculation) occurred, was that the MOB "did not" supply the support to which they had agreed. After this was realized.....

it was "this betrayal" which resulted in the immediate wrath of Joe, Jack and Bobby. Nothing else has ever made much sense to me, as it would make no political sense make war on elements that, thru labor unions and other organizations, would wield a great deal of political power. My personal reasoning is that if the Kennedy's felt that they had won the first election, despite this betrayal,

they were not greatly worried about the next.

I have looked with a great deal of skepticism, in certain areas involving Judith Exner, Sam Giancanna, and certain mob lawyers and relatives of the Giancanna family. IMHO, we are dealing mostly with hearsay that was made known for reasons that were not in the interest of solving the JFK Assassination. A Mob and Castro "Red Herring" was introduced because it was much easier to persuade lilly white Americans, that it was not THEIR GOVERNMENT, but only dark, greasy foreign trash,

that would have been capable of such a horror.

Why is this different than what the Nazis so successfuly implemented in their annihilation ?

I realize that the mob was allied with the CIA in the attempted overthrow of Castro. However I feel most strongly, that this certainly was not an effort made in an earnest attempt to aid the U.S. government.....but was their best method for achieving their financial reinstatement in Cuba.

Although it should be apparrent to even the dimmest, that the Mob strongly supported any effort to eliminate the Kennedy's, for obvious reasons......

I feel that Mob involvement in the actual assassination was not present. They were needed for NOTHING ! Those at the top echelons of U.S. government, agencies and military, had any asset in the world at their disposal. Why would they risk direct involvement with free mouthed braggarts over which they had no true control.

In spite of the flak which I expect from this next statement.....I believe that neither Mafiosi nor Cubans were "needed" and therefore, for many reasons not used.

I believe that this Coup d' Etat was born, bred, financed, and entirely carried out at the direction of the highest power levels of both money and government that existed in the U.S.

This is why it is UNSOLVED !

Charlie Black

[quote name='Charles Black' date='Jan 16 2007, 06:09 PM' post='89543

Is there something which I am overlooking which makes this theory irrational ?

Charlie Black

It's an exercise without an endpoint. What if LHO was having an affair with Ruth Paine and Marina planted evidence to betray him? What if Frazier was one of the shooters? What if Roy Truly was a CIA op? What if JFK was really an actor in disguise?

You could devise many scenarios that could fit into the holes - and it's interesting to do so - but without hard evidence they are and will remain little more than frustrating possibilities.

Mark

You of course are entitled to any view which you wish to pursue.

However, I feel that you have gone to a great deal of effort to characterize my theory as making gigantic leaps into the unknown. I see NO great leap involved other than your effort to characterize it as "extreme" guesswork.

I feel that this theme is quite in line with previous research, and as I stated, it very "logically" answers many questions that have been proposed by what I feel are quite sound researchers. It is only logical to me, that if the conspirators were planning this rifle as a "plant", they would not have depended on Oswald bringing it to work on the morning of the assassination.

This was a "Coup" which was planned and carried out by some very experienced people....."chance" would play no part in their operational plan.

It is not "far fetched".....it is a very easy and quite logical method of solving "an important portion of the PATSY plan", as well as being in posession of spent Carcano shells and the "Magic Bullet". I truly feel that your feeling toward this is truly an "Ostrich eye view". Of Course I can't "prove it". What in fact is "Proven" ?

Regarding the sale of the rifle to the individual in the Service Station......I don't think that the credibility of this alledged incident very much adds or detracts from my my original point. If it is invalid, it would in no way invalidate my original theory.

It amazes me that there are persons who after 43 years do not acknowledge that what we have is no more than a barrel of conflicting "evidence" and testimonies.

It is as if original thought and speculation is criticized because it does not appear in "motion picture" form, with a Perry Mason ending

I feel that the only "motion picture" depiction of proof in this case, has been the greatest hindrance to its solution. There is no doubt, except by only some of the staunchest single gunman theorists, that the Xrays and autopsy photos are in extremely great doubt as to their originality.

I simply propose that the evidence which is most agreed upon, by whom we consider our soundest researchers, can serve only as a basis of hypothesizing "THE MOST LIKELY" outcomes.

There will not be a documentary, factual motion picture, which will spell out the solution as in a novel with a happy ending.

What I feel that is missing, is this correlation of what "we basically agree that we know". Nirvana will not be reached !

This may be taken as a general forum criticism, but it seems to me that we are quite rich in "conflicting evidence", which we can all repeatedly PARROT back and forth to each other in a scholarly manner, as if we had memorized a poem.

What is missing are persons not fearful of stepping out on a precarious ledge, with ORIGINAL THOUGHT, for fear that they will be ridiculed by their peers. For many years, I have been told that there is great progress being made in this case. Where The Hell Is It ?

We ARE NOT approaching consensus and conclusion. We are satisfied with wasting hundreds of posts in the rediscussion of what most have known for a great many years !

Charlie Black