Charles Black

I recall suggesting this question at some time in the past as part of another thread, although I don't recall it being answered. One of the questions that Oswald was asked during a police / FBI interrogation was, "Do you own a rifle"? His response was "NO" ! If my memory is correct concerning the above "semi-quotation", has anyone considered that he was technically telling the truth? There has been much speculation which questions the origins of the "magic bullet" as well as the shell casings which were found on the 6th floor, and the possibility that the MC rifle may very well have been in the posession of the "Killers" days, or even weeks, in advance of the assassination. Since I do not believe that LHO transported the rifle to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22, I feel that when he answered that he did not "own" a rifle.... that he may very well have been telling the truth. The truth being that he was approached by "someone" with whom he had discussed owning a rifle at some date in advance of 11/22/63. He was confronted with an "offer to purchase" the rifle at a price considerably higher than what the weapon was worth......and he accepted the offer, sold the rifle, and May have even had a Bill of Sale for it. This of course was a part of the "PATSY" set up ! He may well have stated this in the "UNRECORDED" police and FBI interviews. He may have even named the purchaser and displayed the Bill of Sale....as Oz did have "street smarts". I realize that many of you do not like "What If's" BUT, what if Wes and Linnie were "enlisted/threatened/purchased" to state that Lee had a "PACKAGE". Wes, not being a Rhodes Scholar candidate, somewhat "screwed up" the story which involved the size of a package/weapon which he had "NEVER SEEN". NO ONE else saw Lee with the package which he never carried ! I feel that with much very questionable "evidence" we are going to necessarily enlist the use of perhaps many "What If's" ! If this particular "What If", turns out to be a "WHAT" rather than an "IF"; it answers a great many of my questions. Is there something which I am overlooking which makes this theory irrational ? Charlie Black

Gary, Stephen, Ashton I thank you all for your responses. Gary, thank you and your apology is appreciated and well taken. Stephen, you in fact said nothing that was really derogatory....at times, I ignite at too low a temperature. Ashton, I'm sure that we will continue to disagree on many points tho we are both moving toward the same goal. I see the misunderstandings that arise as coming from a factor from which we cannot free ourselves. There are a number of commonly accepted "FACTS". However beyond this, we must depend upon speculative minds, to form a theory or conclusion from our different speculative viewpoints. None of us ever "knows" if our particular "pet theory" at a particular moment, is correct...OR...that it will not change. I suppose that we should all be thankful for the ability to form such.....even when we think each other to be "in need of much help"! Again, I thank you three for your replies. Charlie Black

Stephen Please accept my apology if you or others felt that my reference to "insanity" was meant to be applied in the "clinical" sense. That certainly was not my intention. Tho a layman, I am able to grasp the meaning of "insanity". For the welfare of the forum, perhaps you might instruct "Gary" on the definitions of Quote...... "bastardized or blatantly misrepresented"...... he also referred to my "bastardized quotes". I take the terms "bastardized" and "blatantly misrepresented" very seriously, and feel that they were applied in a quite defamatory and inflamatory manner. I always have and expect always to, defend myself when attacked. I hope perhaps that he had been drinking and that this isn't his usual method of communicating. Or perhaps in Ireland, this is acceptable behavior ! But again, my apologies to any and everyone else who may have thought that my reference to "insanity" was meant to be clinical.....I consider it to be common phraseology "here in the colonies". Charlie Black

Gary You are ignorant enough to be "bastardizing" YOURSELF ! I began my post by quote.... "One of my favorite explanations or depictions of insanity is that...." I thought that most persons on this forum would many times have heard that oft quoted definition. However you are no doubt ill read enough to have not. So you accused me of plagiarism as a result of you own very apparent stupidity. I also think that Tom Edison would turn in his grave if he knew than you were calling him "ALMA". And yes ! As you stated "ALMA" experimented with "DIFFERENT" filaments.....not the exact same one over an over again. If you don't have anything worth reading, why not rest your fingers along with your brain. You made a very needlessly rude attack of a post in which I degraded no one......only questioned our "collective wisdom". Mine was meant to possibly stimulate thought. Yours was meant to be both nasty and degrading. You certainly are granted my permission to never read my posts. And by the way......Ashton does an excellent job of defending himself. I don't feel that you are qualified to assist him ! Charlie Black

From my personal experience with military and government VIP vehicles.....NONE would have gone unrepaired from 1961 thru 1963....much less "The Presidential Vehicle". It would have been immediately repaired if even it required that one part to be "remanufactured" by Ford. It would have been immediate ! "OLD DAMAGE" is another fairy tale ! Charlie Black

One of my favorite explanations or depictions of "insanity" is that " When a person or persons, examine the "same problem", by the "same methods", for an extraordinarily long period of time, and are confounded that these continuous examinations all conclude nothing but the same repeated results..... and they do not understand WHY? ...that this is insanity. Why are a group of intelligent people so mesmerized by references such as : three gunmen...one missed shot...military ambush....triangulation of fire... snipers perch....grassy knoll....military snipers...high powered rifles....recordings of the number of shots (when we know of sound supression)....Corsican Mafia...."many" missed shots....firecrackers...."head snap"...possibly mis labeled Z frame numbers...number of shooters...location of shooters.....an obviously "planted old rifle"...possible shooters in different buildngs... After 43 years of reexamining the exact same theories, it would seem that there might be some who would not be embarrased to admit that perhaps there is something wrong with our 43 year old conceptions. After all, there have been some pretty weighty minds who have examined this Same Evidence. Why, after all of these four decades of investigations, are we not turning up anything new? Is it possible that some theories which at first may seem "Far Out", may actually be viable ? Possibly some very simple theories that can answer what we have considered very puzzling questions. Why do many think, that because that they think in like manner to many others, that the conspirators who exist in a "completely different" world and frame of mind, would necessarily reason in the same manner ? Are conspiracies and political conspirators "PROFILED" ? Would you not think that assassins would tend to more follow the route travelled by other most "successful assassins" ? Why do we think that the best way to assasinate a political figure is from a "tall building with a high power rifle"? It has not been done in this manner in other assassnations, both political and non political. Have you ever asked why ? Could the answer be that this is not the most efficient and assured manner in which to take out a single individual ? Do the terms "military sniper", "military ambush" and "triangulation of fire" seem more reasonable than....... "Let's forget all of the BS formalities and just make certain that we kill the S.O.B." ! Perhaps what I consider "insanity" is not thought to be by those in more learned circles. I personally feel that we should pull our "collective heads " out of our "collective a____" and take a look at the REAL UGLY WORLD much less reasonably, gentlemenly, and intellectually ! If you were seeking advice on the most successful way to rob a bank...would you ask Chomsky or Dillinger? Charlie Black

Ashton I have ignored NO CREDIBLE ANSWER. As I stated, your response would be ".... a barage of verbage meant to "impress" while truly stating nothing pertinent." It should be obvious to anyone having read this "entire" thread That this is exactly what you have done. You have answered NOTHING....which at least both you and I well understand ! Charlie Black

I have become confused. It appears to me that this is an "indentation" and it is at an irregular and upward angle. Is someone suggesting that this was a "hole" into which a crank handle was inserted, or did I misinterpret something ? If this were not due to a bullet or another type of accident, this designed indentation should have been centered in the chrome strip and equidistant to the ends. Has anyone the capability to make such a measurement ? The upward angle is also not indicative of an engineering modification. Charlie Black

Not to belabor the point but I find something quite interesting. In "my" immediately prior post I stated : "If you stay tuned to this topic, you will find that the questions which I presented in my immediately prior post ( #89 I think ), will not receive any "credible" answers. I was apparently correct. I expect that the members toward which this post was directed, realize the absurdity of accusing the Parkland Medical Staff of being assassins, and conspirators to murder the President. If there is any true "response", which I don't anticipate there to be, it will necessarily be a long winded expression of more circular logic that will directly address nothing. It will only be a barrage of verbage meant to "impress", while truly stating nothing pertinent to what I have asked. There can be no such answer on this particular forum, simply because there is not one which is intelligent or logical enough to be acceptable. I would suppose that there is hope that this ridiculous issue will simply "fade away". It has accomplished its purpose ! It misdirected many hours of this forums time and energy that may have been used for something realistic and pertinent. What will the next deeply intellectual thread be titled ? "WHY WAS THERE A HEAD WOUND " ? Charlie Black

I am dissapointed that this "brilliant, free thinking researcher" has decided not to join us. He could join the debate without ever having to initiate an "original thought", which he apparently has never had. He simply could reply to any and every possible subject by stating "SEE THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT" ! We should probably inform him that he could easily set a new forum record for the most responses in the least amount of time ! That should be incentive enough. We could tell him that we will try to have him entered into the Guinnes book ! (Is Guinnes spelled the same as the beer, or in a more scholarly manner ?) Charlie Black P.S. In an effort to be as humane as possible, and in an even further effort to display our highly recognized religious charity and the courteousy so common among even disagreeing forum members, we should make every effort not to injure his ego, by insuring that we never mention in his presence, the final conclusions of the report of the HSCA !

Hello Frank I pretty carefully looked into this several years ago. But a quick search of my "meticulous" filing procedures hasn't and probably won't quickly produce what I was searching for. If I recall correctly, the back brace did not go nearly as far up the back as I had imagined. There was even a picture of it posted on one of the forums which perhaps amother member may have at hand. This brace was nothing like a board up the President's back which would have made all of his body be forced to move together. He was leaning forward from the waist when a head shot struck. But back to your original question....the force of the bullet impact, regardless of the type of back brace, was not forceful enough to have produced the illusion which resulted from the rapid excision of several frames. As Dr. David Mantik and other experts in the field have stated, the speed and upward and backward movement of JFK's body was produced by a force too great to have been caused by "a" or "several" bullets. This along with my pretty extensive personal study of ballistics, which led to the same conclusion, is the reason that I believe that this unnatural movement never happened. None of the Dealey Plaza witnesses on the afternoon of 11/22/63 reported anything similar to this. Both they and Jackie repored him falling sideways into Jackies lap. No "head snap". Regardless of what some attempt to discount as unreliable witness testimony, I feel that it takes one pretty witless to claim that dozens of witnesses, all reporting the same event, while never having discussed it with each other, are all wrong "because the Z film could not have been altered". I will repeat again that I strongly feel that frame excision occurred immediately following frame 312 in order to hide evidence of an exposed shooter on the Z film. I didn't mean to deliver a sermon but this is an area that I am fervent about because "I" know that what we seem to see did not, in fact, occur. If you stay tuned to this topic, you will find the questions which I presented in my immediatley prior post (#89 I think) , will not be provided any realistic answer. There are attempts being made to enlist support of blatant fantasies. In my opinion of course ! Charlie Black

Hello Robin I am in agreement that it appears to be a bullet strike that had an upward trajectory. Although the SS claimed that this was an "old" indentation I cannot believe it. When I was in the military during this particular period of time, there were very accurate inspections to VIP military vehicles that were reported with written record. However, the SS could have forged such a report, as it seems highly unlikely to me that a "Presidntial Vehicle" would have been allowed out of the garage with such an obvious defect staring JFK in the face. It possibly could have been the result of a missed shot riccochet, tho the angle is extreme. At the risk of more forum members questioning my sanity, I will bore some of you with an earlier proposition of mine. There could have been more than one Elm Street spectator who was a shooter. It can certainly help explain an upward angled throat shot and a different upward angle chrome strip shot that "missed"..... from two separate shooters, wielding "concealed and silenced" handguns. "Concealed" and "silenced" are THE qualifying factors. This has been too easily dismissed. It is very doable, and most political assassination attempts have been both with handguns and from a very close range. I fail to see how so many, so readily, dismiss a very viable scenario ! You are CORRECT ! This has not been a major topic of discussion for 43 years! But I am correct when I propose that those "major topics" have not solved this case. Has anyone considered some new but sound and reasonable ideas? Or is that "too far out" ? I am willing to "bet the farm" that if this scenario were privately discussed among current or former intelligence officers, that it would in NO WAY be dimissed ! Charlie Black PS To further disgust some of you...in my bold opinion, this is why there have been excised frames from the Z film. Some "happening" on Elm Street had to be disguised ! Charlie Black

The only reason that this thread has advanced this far should be evident to anyone willing to read "every" post in this thread. Pertinent questions and answers have either not been addressed at all, or the pretense was given to answering questions by changing the meaning of what the questioner posted. This type of thing happens frequently during these discussions ......particularly when a very limited number of posters with ingrained ideas ( such as me) are arguing perhaps "pet points" (as is human, tho not scholarly). Reason seems to take a backseat to ego. The additional input by more and different participants would go a long way toward correcting this, IMHO. I want to personally apologize to those of you who have been the target of my sometimes agressive comments. Since I personally know none of you, my criticism is not meant to be aimed at you personally.....rather at your expressed views. At times it is apparent from re-reading this entire thread, that what is responded to is often not what the poser of the question was "meaning to communicate". As I re-read all of the posts, in my mind at least, there were several points and questions that I "attempted" to make that I do not feel were understood, or else were merely unanswered. If I may, I would in a most elementary manner, like to re-question a few of these items. 1) Please tell me why there could not have been an Elm Street assassin who acted "exactly" in the manner indicated in the several posts in which I proposed this. 2) Please tell me how any of you know exactly where JFK's collar rode at "the instant" of what I perceive as a gunshot. If you cannot....how can you argue the point? 3) If the throat wound were not a gunshot from my "fancied" idea.....why could there not have been a thru the windshield shot, as has been previously proposed from the area of the underpass. The wound could have been created by a piece of glass or a bullet. 4) I proposed that CE399, if not a plant, could have been the result of a "faulty load" in a bullet which shallowly entered JFK's back a short distance and emerged back out of the entry wound and was caught in JFK's clothing. NO ONE is "certain of exactly where this bullet was found ! 5) If a paralytic bullet "froze" JFK's body.....how did the unreal movement of JFK being "slammed" against the back cushion occur.....short of his being hit with a sledge hammer? 6) What medical authority states and has substantial support that what I, and a great many, perceive as a quite natural reaction to a throat wound....is anything other than that? Why is there an "insistance that JFK was paralysed....by either an anterior or posterior shot? I am not an MD, however I have seen throat trauma from both a blow to the throat and from choking. Even when attempting to truly stretch my imagination, I see nothing but a near perfect depiction of throat trauma. Why insist "BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PARALYTIC AGENT"? It also "could have been" a siezure. But why believe that it was not the most obvious occurrence ? Why alter what most persons would see as "obvious", in an attempt to further expand a conspiracy? 7) Why would Parkland personnel lie unless they were a part of the conspiracy? As most of us must be in agreement that Parkland IMMEDIATE testimony, on the afternoon of 11/22/63, stated that the anterior throat wound appeared to be one of bullet entry. Why, except for nefarious purposes, would someone on this forum wish to disregard the immediate testimony, in favor of what was "admittedly changed" testimony, SWORN to the Warren Commission and to government investigators at a later date? Does this not SMELL? What does it SMELL of ? 8) Despite possible limited availability and a very disputable delivery mechanism, please indicate to me that such a paralysing agent was used as a part of any other assassination plan. Do you feel that a U.S. Coup d' Etat would have been chosen as "a proving ground" for such a weapon. If a hit could have been made center throat with a paralysing delivery weapon, which at most would have very limited testing, why would a "hit" not be much more assured with a state of the art firearm, with a proven accuracy, in the hands of a world class marksman, shooting to KILL. For what reason would a goup of"killing" experts, care to muddy up the scene with "unproven extras"? As has been the history of this particular thread, I doubt if anyone will even ATTEMPT, an answer to these most obvious questions. This thread can only continue if they remain IGNORED. If an attempt is made at answering, I ask forum members to relate "exactly" the answers that you are given to the actual questions which I have asked. I would really like to be convinced of this newest Dealey Plaza intepretation. If they bother to answer, please be prepared for a massive discourse of nothing more than "CIRCULAR LOGIC" ! These questions will not be answered in a manner that is satisfactory to persons that have thoroughly studied this case. Charlie Black

I have decided that in order to return this forum to sanity that there is an action which I must attempt to take. I plan to petition NASA to create "permanent positions " in the space station for several of our very qualified members. They appear to prefer the study of Lunar Matters to all else. They have all been awarded DL degrees. I feel that this matter will receive rapid approval as there are very few degreed "Doctors of Lunacy" available ! Charlie Black

Bingo! Thank you, Ron. I would expand a little on your last points -- first the diversionary shots, then the paralytics, then the bullets. Occam's Razor, indeed. Why assume anything? The evidence is clearly there, the throat and back wounds are consistent with un-conventional firearms, and JFK's reaction is utterly consistent with a paralytic strike. Cliff This as unscientific a post as I have ever read. There is NOTHING that is indicative of anything other than a throat wound as was reported by the only persons qualified to know. Are you now qualified as an "expert witness" in the science of paralytic dart reaction ? There were also at this time, "death darts". However they were not easily manipulated. That is why Castro remained alive and thought was given to killing him by "exploding conch shell" and other outer planetary brainstorms. It appears to me that forum members go to the opposite extremes of assesing Intellgence Agency capabilities in 1963. One group claims that they cannot make undetectable changes to 8 mm film, while at the same time others are verging on espousing theories on "ray guns". You are following the Pied Pipers on an infintessimal tangent that can lead to nowhere but confusion, and the increase of distance between what appears to be two already distant poles. What has happened to COMMON SENSE ? Why do all of the emerging modern Sherlock's, suddenly believe that the Parkland Staff was unprofessional, incompetent, and had been infiltrated by a cadre of "murderers with MD degrees". What I expect to follow is a 180 degree turn around, and for some to start praising the merits of the Bethesda Staff, who had it right all along, and that confusion arose only because of that Parkland gang of liars and murderers ! Some of you have questioned and critcized the Press for not having "the guts" to tell the truth rgarding this assassination. It appears to me at this point, that the educational community shares at least equally with the "free press" in keeping this matter under wraps. Beam me up Scotty.....my job in Dealey Plaza is finished ! Charlie Black

Hello All This thread has followed the ridiculous circular path as has the JFK assassination in general. There are those who will propose absolute fantasy to support ridiculous and very unlikely positions. Ashton has been one of the best at this game. He has been, in the past, a strong proponent of the more immediate testimony most likely to be the more accurate. However in this thread, Ashton perceived that this method would not best support the "fantasy" of this thread which he initiated....SO....he changes from what is considered the most believable and truthful testimony ( that given by the Parkland personnel on the afternoon of 11/22/63 ) to "SWORN", as he puts it, testimony to the Warren Commission months later. It is acknowledged by anyone who has studied this case that the FBI "pressured" the Parkland staff to conform, and to change their testimony, to one that was more in alignment with the Bethesda report. Tho I don't immediately recall his name (tho someone here surely can), the FBI agent who applied this pressure actually admitted it and stated that he felt bad about it. Ashton, if he is not directly trying to mislead this forum for some "personal reason", is using "Posnerian" tactics to deliberately pound home a "false" point, by the "very selective use of testimony". He uses only that which supports his immediate fancy, and expects the forum to be ignorant of his so obvious tactics. The Warren Commission had Arlen, however we cannot be outdone, as we have Ashton ! He constantly switches to the conveyance which most meets his immediate needs. He is either on this forum because he feels that "debate" is that form of competition in which he most likely might excel, or for a possibly more nefarious reason. I would have thought that more members would be aware of of his "circular logic" means of confusing the panel. This thread began with what should be realized as a most unlikely FANTASY ! It is an attempt to further divide members on the few issues upon which most have previously been in agreement. I certainly "HOPE" that I am dead wrong, but I see chances of any true progress in this matter being led away by the "PIED PIPERS" of conspiracy. There is nothing more that I can offer this thread so I won't attempt to "blabber" ! Charlie Black

Ashton Some nice writing but you should practice reading! You distorted my position. I am not going to spend much time with this, but you idiocized (new word) my speculation. I will again explaine to you the " HOW "! The handgun was sound supressed (therefore very little noise)...it was concealed in a "real world" manner such as a camera, hat, purse, magazine, hand held clothing item, newspaper, magazine....you get the idea. It would not have been seen at all, and the sound supression would have been effective enough with "firecrackers"...."missed bullets"...real shots that were not "silenced".... motorcycle backfires, etc. happening all at the same time. This assassin had the easiest avenue of escape. He or she, blended in with the crowd. Maybe went up to explore the knoll area with the other onlookers. This was up close and personal and with a hand held weapon.....much the same way that "successful" assassinations have been carried out which pre-date the Roman forum. Nothing very tricky or James Bondish. Not a very "clever" scheme which utilized darts, umbrellas, paralysing agents and umbrellas. Just a very easy and simple scheme that is probably beneath the dignity of you higher intellects. We "dummies" have to "Keep It Simple" ! Charlie Black

Hello Cliff I do not understand why the six points which you mention at the end of your last post are not in harmony with my spectator/assassin frontal throat shot. When a well qualified Parkland Hospital trauma staff reported an anterior throat wound, which appeared to be a bullet entry wound.....why is it being considered that they were not qualified to make this diagnosis correctly. I consider this to be "expert" testimony given within minutes of the President's death. I have absolutely "no reason to assume" them to be mistaken because some were later admittedly pressured to alter their testimony. Of course in 1963, they had not yet had the paranoia or the wisdom which might be derived from James Bond films. It is apparent to me that JFK was reacting to violet throat trauma. It still makes absolutely no sense to me why this should be assumed to be anything other than a bullet wound as reported by the only persons truly qualified to diagnose this wound. You have departed the realm of probability when you begin to insert James Bond "could have happened" possibilities. Many things seem possible, merely because it is impossible to "prove" the negative of the issue. I prefer to stick to the probable as was reported on the afternoon of 11/22/63 by the persons whose profession it was "TO KNOW"......not to guess at things that could be possible. You may of course continue to believe whatever you wish. If you were to propose that the assassination was carried out by 132 aliens from an out of galaxy planet.....I could not PROVE you wrong. Since none of us can possibly truly know the answer, I have chosen to accept what I personally believe to be the "most likely". Charlie Black

Hello Cliff Didn't intend to be offensive. However there might be a reason that my lovely bride is always reminding me that "TACT is not something nailed into a wall". Cliff, just because one has had military training, does not guarantee that one will duck "quick enough". There are many such in their graves. You should also not forget that the Secret Service entourage, except for two individuals, did not react unti the passage of several seconds. They did not return one shot of gunfire ! Why should JFK react any faster? Do you feel that he thought, "Oh...I have been struck by a paralysing dart and must duck very quickly before the paralysing agent begins to work" ? This "reaction time" was instilled in the SS as a primary consideration. This was by far their most important consideration while assigned Presidential Protection detail, BUT it didn't work! I strongly believe that JFK was so surprised by the throat trauma that he had no idea of what struck him. He certainly didn't hear "that shot". His "quizzical look" as expressed by Jackie has only led me to further conclude that "he never knew what hit him"! Agent Kellerman only ducked when he reported a "flurry of shots" entering the car. From what I understand, during the millisecond that it takes to duck, if he absolutely KNEW it to be a gunshot wound, the victim would not have been yet paralyzed and could have reacted! You state "..what if the shooters wing the guy and he ducks" ? He "could have ducked" in either case if he truly had recognition of gunfire. Not trying to be facetious, but he also didn't duck when a Japanese destroyer rammed PT 109 in the quiet of the night (there was not a gun battle being carried out). The only such incident in U.S. Naval History ! As far as paralysis is concerned, your thinking that he appears paralyzed is more consistent with looking at still frames, rather than the full speed film. Do you really believe that the shooting planners took it into consideration that they would use a paralysing shot because, as you stated, "it worked for scorpions" ? ? Cliff, I would venture a guess that you are not a very efficient "duck hunter" ! I remain strongly in defense of my previous posts. Charlie Black

I do not understand why, on assassination forums, we forget the rule of "Keep it Simple". Why risk a brain of the wrong weight being interred? Does anyone really believe that Evelyn or Bobby unsealed the container and ghoulishly looked at the lacerated brain of someone they loved? Would you have done so? What could it have proven? I maintain that it was either "lose the brain" or "once again" rewrite the autopsy report. I feel that THEY kept it simple. Charlie Black

Hello Cliff I agree that paralytic elements were available to "Black Ops" practitioners in 1963, however I cannot see it being used in this scenario. Why the waste of using a paralysing element for a "hit" that could have been a "Kill Shot" ? It would have been none easier to score a direct hit with the former than with the latter. Why the wasted effort and the "extra assassin" ? Just for the record, I do not believe that Umbrella Man would have called such attention to himself, if there was any way that he could have been implicated in firing "an umbrella shot". The umbrella could easily have been identified as "a weapon", if it were such. I feel that at times we tend to be more "James Bondish" than what is simpler and more practical. I personally, tho not at all medically qualified, do not see JFK as having been paralysed. In my eyes he is reacting to a typical "choking" type trauma as I have seen in persons choking on food or a blow to the throat. It is normal that the victim does not move around very much.....he brings arms and hands up to the throat area but "does not" clutch the throat. This is what I see in JFK's reaction ! Perhaps I am too simplistic. However I tend to believe that if it looks, walks, and talks like a "duck"......then it probably is in fact, a "duck". Charlie Black

Hello Ashton I must agree that what you pose is "possible", however I don't think it be the most probable and most likely explanation. I feel, as I have stated so many times previously on this forum, that JFK's hand and arm actions as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, may be one of the few discernible realities of the extant Z film. I feel that he was reacting to throat trauma which was caused by a wound inflicted by an upward angled, small caliber concealed handgun, which was wielded by an Elm Street spectator / assassin. I feel that the upward angled bullet penetrated the anterior throat and lodged in the skull or brain. It was consequently later "blown out" by "a" or "several" forthcoming bullet wounds to the head which could have come from either or both directions. Most people do not realize the lethality and frequency of death by .22 caliber wounds. More deaths are caused within the U.S. by the .22 caliber than any other. The reason for this, and what generally doesn't come to a non-shooters mind, is that the .22 caliber has enough energy or velocity to enter, but usually not enough to "exit". This results in the .22 caliber bouncing around within ones skull, or body, in a manner similar to a ball in a pin ball machine. This creates massive "INTERNAL" damage, tho not appearing to have done so from outer appearance. This is why the small caliber shot to the head has been favored by most organized crime assassins. Tho the "stopping power" of the .22 is not as great as some larger calibers, its lethality is infamous. I do not think that the assassin meant for this to be a throat hit......rather a missed "head shot" ! A .22 caliber head wound may be likened to making hamburger meat of the brain. As far as the back wound, I feel that there can be many conclusions. In that it entered at a downward angle, I feel it possible that it could have been a "missed" or deflected downward "intended" head shot. It also could have been a larger caliber "dud" which could have been caused by faulty powder or bullet loading. If the "magic bullet" alledgedly found in the hospital, were not a plant, it could have been this "dud" that partially entered the back of the President and ended up within his clothing and later in the hallway where "found". Proof of an Elm street spectator / shooter or shooters, answers many possible questions such as angles of entry, number of shots (when "sound supressed" handguns are factored in) and the different "earwitness" testimony regarding the number and types of sounds reported. This of course is merely "my speculation". However for many reasons, it makes a great deal of sense to me. As little Tommy Jefferson once said about two centuries ago "...every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle" ! Charlie Black

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA "GATORS" U.S. REIGNING NATIONAL CHAMPS / TWO SPORTS FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL Charlie Black

JFK's brain was buried with his body during his re-interment in 1967. His re-interment file is several inches thick with several dozen Polariod images. johnw John Please post the polaroid images of JFK's brain that was interred ! I feel certain that this will open up an entirely new Avenue for study. Charlie Black

Hello Andy & Peter I am certainly in agreement with Andy's assessment of "Brother". I live in Florida and suffer from extreme "over exposure" ! However, it isn't just Jeb and "dubya". It is also their "Poppa" and grand pop etc. A long line of "thinkers" whose least interest has been their country's "best interest" ! What I find nearly terrifying is that both George W. and his father, are not only graduates of one of my nation's leading Ivy League colleges, but that they were both CHOSEN for membership in that college's most elite society...Skull & Bones. That alone should tell anyone who might be in doubt, exactly who and what controls the backbone of this "great society". Dad was bad enough, but can you imagine "dubya", who truly alone cannot probably construct a sentence, to have been CHOSEN while at a leading university, to be one of our nation's future leaders...Supreme Commander ? His search for weapons of mass destruction, was likened in my mind, to an Easter Egg Hunt in an asylum for the "Most Impaired". Charlie Black