Charles Black

Ashton I never thought that I would say this, but you offer an extraordinary amount of "very sound thinking", on those occasions when you descend from that area of the stratosphere where I often find you. I also look forward to your "Timeline". Charlie Black

My speculation is that the "missing brain" MUST remain "missing". The autopsy error of the "weight" of the brain, which was entered in the autopsy report, is the full weight of an average brain. This was no doubt realized, and either the report would have to be "re-rewritten" to change the weight, in order to account for the weight of the largely missing brain portions, or it had to be insured that the actual brain of JFK disappeared. With the "recorded weight" in the autopsy report, it would be obvious if a different and lighter weight "blasted brain" was substituted.....in the event that there ever was an exhumation. It is my understanding that the missing body parts were supposed to have been preserved. So even an exhumation many years later, would indicate a gross mistake at best.....but probably foul play. Charlie Black

This now seems an established tradition amongst American Presidents Well Put ! This downward spiral has intensified to what might be called a flush ! I keep telling myself that it "can't get any worse". And myself responds by calling me "a xxxx"! Charlie Black

Ashton Gray I find your innuendo's, which are meant to cast a shadow on Mr. Weisberg's work, insulting to the research community in general; not only to Mr. Weisberg ! I (me personally), feel that you are a "hack" journalist who craves attention to such an extreme, that you, for the most part, are willing to lend your "fingers" ( I certainly hope not your brain ), to creating forum threads of such a controversial, although always "unproveable", nature that the forum is is led away from the discusion of items which may be more pertinent to the case. Some call this "trolling".....however I, as a fishing enthusiast, refer to it as "bottom feeding". It is YOUR posts that I frequently refer to as "tabloid quality" and very disingenuous. They are meant to be "irritants" and "attention getters". Since you are both a "professional" journalist and quite bright, I do not mistake the consistency of this "type" of input as accidental ! I feel it a "duty", and not amusing, to enter this post, which I feel is more degrading to me, than it is to you. Since I am neither personally acquainted with you, nor do I know anything about you other than what is included in your forum bio., this is an attack upon your "methods"......for whatever reason these methods are employed! I understand also that you have the forum right to "attempt to be controversial". I have not found you to be a "xxxx". But "extrmely" disingenuous.....which is even more dangerous. Outright lies can be disproven! Charlie Black

SORRY AGAIN ! another double post

Sorry / double post !

Hello Mike and Bill At least you guys did respond. Mike there is something which I question in your post. You said "...your question was confined to a very narrowly defined group" I disagree. I was simply attempting to re-introduce some logic into a subject, in a different thread, which I, and I know that many others thought, was absolutely absurd. That thread, which intimated that the Parkland Trauma Staff were a part of the assassination team, very definitely IS the type of discussion that brings great discredit to those who believe that a conspiracy existed and exists. I feel that "this" is the type of discussion to which Bill Miller referred, that paints conspiracy theorists as a "far out" group rather than serious researchers. Michael, you also stated that I was asking questions of a particular group. What group? I feel that the scenario that I expressed in my opening thread, is what is generally acknowledged as having happened. Do you believe that many doctors or researchers truly believe that he was suffering a neuronuscular reaction to, at most a very shallow back wound that struck nothing vital ? Do you believe that those persons who have delved deeply into this case, over a number of years, truly believe that the theory of the Parkland Medical Staff being assassins, is truly viable and worthy of lengthy discussion. If many people do place credence in this theory of the medical staff as murderers, I very well might belong to a forum which is so out of alignment with what I consider "simple common sense", that I should not wonder why certain posts, which I feel significant, are not addressed. Regardless, your interest in the subject has been appreciated. Charlie Black

Hello Jack Amazing aint it ! No one will TOUCH this thread ! They will however spend hundreds of hours and thousands of words on subjects such as "the assassin Doctors and staff of Trauma One".....and the murderous William Greer. I suppse that I must learn to post in the form of Super Market Tabloids ! Or just not bother ! Charlie Black

I "think" that it is acknowledged by most who have seen the Zapruder film even a minimum number of times, that something "unusual" occurred as the view of JFK is hidden as he travels behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Prior to approaching the sign, he is waving to the crowd as he had been waving all along the motorcade route. However, as he emerges from behind the sign, it is clearly evidenced that he is reacting immediately and violently to something that has occured while the view of him has been blocked while behind the sign. To my unmedically trained perception, I was under the impression that he was reacting to throat trauma. As I have expressed in prior posts, the only similar reactions that I had ever observed, were exact similar reactions by my young children while being fed and when something apparently went down the wrong way. The only similar reaction that I have observed in an adult, was from a similar cause. Since during this exact period of time the sound of firecrackers / gunshots were being heard throuughout Dealey Plaza, I, perhaps wrongly concluded, that the President was reacting to being struck in the throat by a missle fired from a weapon. I have since heard of numerous attempted explanations, but since the well trained Trauma Room personnel, on that aftenoon of 11/22/63, had proclaimed in Parkland Hospital, that there was a wound in the anterior mid throat region that appeared to be a wound of bullet entrance, I considered this as "expert" a source of testimony that could EVER be found. I STILL DO ! In my amateurish mind, I immediately related the sound of gunfire, JFK throat trauma at this exact time, and the medical staff's proclamation of a bullet entrance wound in the anterior mid throat region of The President, that it did not take Sherlock Holmes to "presume" that "one of the things which had occurred in Dealey Plaza, was that one of the several bullets which were known to have struck both JFK and JBC, had struck JFK in the throat and caused the perceived trauma. There have been many attempts, by I assume, " rear shot only" advocates, to misinterpret what is the obvious, into a scenario, regardless of how unlikely and stretched is their explanation. They have used the "Identical Means" of preventing factual conclusion, by the age old, childish but reasonable explanation, that if one cannot prove that a fired missile struck JFK in the throat, that this cannot be proven since neither a bullet has been found, nor is there a photograph showing this missile, at the moment of impact with JFK's throat. I suppose that this may be taken as an accusation, but I consider it as only a personal theory, since I cannot verify it with documentation....I personally very strongly feel that "many" who lead us down these paths which are very divergent, from what most on this planet perceive, after considerable study, to be "the truth", are doing so to further confuse the issue, and maintain in a state of limbo, the research and investigation of this most hideous crime against both JFK and the entire world. Now ! To my very simple question to those who claim that the reaction to throat trauma, which I consider a bullet wound to the throat, is not that at all. It has been referred to as a "neuromuscular reaction". My question is simple. A neuromuscular reaction to what ? An inch deep wound to the upper back and to the right of the spinal column ? You may call me insane, but I perceive that there have recently been a great increase in a form of forum participation, which contributes only to wasting time and diverting the course of this investigation. An attempt to divert the forum to questions that can only lead to a path of concentric circles which finally merely swallow themselves. If no one else views what I perceive as the blatantly obvious, perhaps it is me that is "certifiable" ! Charlie Black

Hello again Dawn Appreciate your response. But am I truly more paranoid than I think ? Are you the only person on this forum willing to "go out on a limb?" and express a view on this topic? Perhaps I am in error, but I feel that this is a quite important topic. Much more so than than the current discussions of the "Parkland assassins". But then again, I am just a poor old Southern country boy, who probably does not know hot to separate the truly significant, from the BS. The discussion of the importance of both trauma room and Presidential driver assassins, is up there in that elevation of intelligencia, in which I would probably require oxygen ! I feel that there are those forum participants who are so "combative", that they would rather participate in an attack and feeding frenzy, than to pursue what I long conceived to be the purpose of this forum. This is becoming the Roman Gladiatorial Colliseum rather than "The Forum". Current Score : LIONS "35" / RESEARCHERS "0" SPARTACUS BLACK

I am quite surprised that my throat wound theory which I entered in post # 36 has not been mentioned or even attacked. I personally see no point in re posting the hundreds of repeats of the Parkland medical staff which most active members of this forum have probably memorized, in a "needless" effort to prove to most on this earth, that the Parkland medical staff were not "hitmen" or "hitwomen" Mention was even given to the "umbrella man dart". AGAIN ! Do any of you who seem intent on doing no more than re-hashing decades old testimony...or argue about Parkland Trauma Room assassins.....really find the theory that JFK may have been shot with a hand gun, as have been most recent political assassination attempts, to be strange or unworthy of contemplation? Does it really seem "out of the question" ? If so, what is unreasonable or unaccomplishable about it? You seem to be wearing your fingers out responding to what a great many students of this case, are discussing. It takes one hell of a stretch to imagine an assassination attempt so complex, that "KILLER" doctors and staff from Parkland Hospital, were recruited to poke a hole in the President's throat, for reasons unknown, prior to the assassination. Do ANY of you truly believe this ? I shouldn't need to remind any of you that most assassins throughout history thought it necessary to be "up close and personal"! Caesar was certainly not shot by a barrage of arrows. The "moderns" who seem to have the most experience in killing, "organized crime", have mostly chosen very "close" shots with small caliber handguns. Why should it seem not "natural", much less considered strange, that this would not have been incorporated in an very important murder scheme. It is apparently the most effective method or it would not be used by the most effective murderers. You have even wasted thousands of words discussing the "possibility ?" of William Greer shooting the President. Does a somewhat radical though quite possible theory, frighten some of you away? Possibly because it takes some new thinking as opposed to reposting decades old argumets? Are you afraid to be laughed at by your conteporaries ? When patting ourselves on the backs, we should never forget the extent in which the educational community has dropped the ball, by its failure to bring unpopular "truths" to light. I suppose being passed over for promotion, or considered foolish by your superiors, is really nothing that many can realistically do without bringing possible irreparable injury to both you and your families. I understand this and can do it neither ! Suppose this (post 36) "IS an answer" ! Can anyone definitively explain to me why it cannot be ? It in no way changes the identities or motivation of the conspirators! Have you heard the terms "military style ambush" and "triangulation of fire" so many times that this is all that resonates thru your mind. Have you ever considered that a white haired, 60 year old "grandmother" can be quite a good shot and "deadly". I truly hope that you are not under the impression that my feelings are hurt because my post was not responded to. The real impression should be that I don't really care what you might think of "that particular theory".....but it is quite disappointing to me that you almost never introduce anything new. Do any of you know the "success" that was achieved by both the military and corporate industry by an almost childish pracice called "brainstorming"? When we rehash decades old ideas....all we receive in return is decades old solutions......that weren't viable decades ago, and will not be at present. This may perhaps be taken as a forum criricism, but I meant it to be a re-evaluation of some of our practices. Perhaps I am just not "bright enough" to be progressive enough to see the value derived from discussing Parkland Doctors who were assassins, or Presidential "drivers" who blew the Presidents head off. These discussions are no doubt so far above my personal intellectual level, that I probably do not really qualify as a member of this forum. I personally am bored of discussions and arguments that are considerably older than many members of this forum, and what seems to be a uniform reluctance by many to express an idea that may not be readily embraced. Charlie Black

Hello Dawn You, in an earlier post, mentioned that you were confused (as are most) that how could there be a throat entrance wound and no evidence of the missile being in the body nor a tract and exit of this missile. A number of years ago I had a somewhat wild theory, tho not as wild as the "Parlkland Assassin Team". The theory is quite different. However, if considered with an "open" mind, I feel that it has merit and is certainly possible. I have long felt that at least one shot was fired by a small caliber weapon.... .22 or .25 caliber, from a small "sound supressed" handgun, concealed by an Elm Street spectator / shooter. Concealed within a camera, a hat, a purse, magazine or many other possible hiding places. This "silenced" concealed small weapon would have allowed "this shooter", to blend in with the crowd and probably have a very easy and unnoticed escape. The only reason that I am mentioning this is that what I propose allows for a "path and disposal" of the throat entering bullet. I suggest that this small caliber weapon was fired from a lower elevation than was the presidents throat. This small bullet entered the throat at an pretty extreme upward angle and lodged in the scalp or head of JFK. The bullet remained in the Presidents head until his head was struck by the one or two headshots which blew said bullet away with portions of brain and scalp. My method of madness may be carred a step further. It has been a speculation of mine that evidence of this shooter "MAY" have been captured by Zapruder. My next step, if you care to so follow me, led to the "excision" of several Zapruder frames to remove evidence of that ground level shot. I will stop here.....but it is "a way" that the evidence of an anterior entering throat shot could have disappeared. Perhaps I am crazier than I accuse some others of being ! But this answers, for me at least, several very baffling questions. This shooting by an Elm Street spectator was very "DOABLE". Charlie Black

Hello Cliff I more than agree with your prior post. Mr Gray has been doing some very questionable things in my opinion. Not only was his choice of pictures quite disingenous......but the TOPIC itself (the Parkland doctors mangling the body), I doubt would be given a second look by any of the "rags" sold at the supermarket counters. I do not know Mr. Gray, however this is not the only off beat subject that he has latched onto like a bulldog. In this ridiculous scenario, he has either surgeons who are all gifted with two left hands and are also partially blind, or he has them as an integral, planned element of the conspiracy. He cannot understand JFK's response to throat trauma as he is not "clutching" his throat. People who have throat trauma "do not" clutch their throat because this action tends to further choke them. Anyone who has ever had much experience feeding an infant, immediately recognizes this "choking" reaction. Hands are lifted in front of the face, often with the palms outward, they do not "grasp" anything, and they make a choking sound while exhibiting a quite quizzical look . They do not understand what has happened! If my memory is correct, this is basically the exact reaction which Jackie explained that she witnessed in her husband. If I were asked to choose "one group of witnesses" whom I had the most faith in regarding their testimonies on 11/22/63......It would without hesitation, be the Parkland Trauma Staff ! Whether Mr. Gray is intimating that the Parkland Staff were conspirators or whether they were all Neanderthals who had picked up scalpels....I cannot be certain. I do feel quite certain that he is as off track as any trumped up theory that I have ever heard regarding this case. I am having difficulty deciding which one of two possible motives that Mr. Gray is displaying by his "strange choice of topics" upon which he expounds. The two motives that I feel are most obvious are : 1) He feels that he is clever enough to lead the gullible on fake treasure hunts. Fake because there is never treasure after the much wasted time. 2) I have no proof to base my next possible motive upon, but were he one whose purpose it is to misguide and waste vast amounts of forum space and time......he has excelled ! 3) Other than these warnings, which may be misguided, I have decided that my wisest use of time, is to bypass Mr. Gray's future "generous contributions" to this forum. Seriously ! Does anyone agree that what I think is a ridiculous waste of time, discussing conspiracy and malpractice in the Parkland Trauma room, will contribute anything toward the solution of this case? Mr Gray is leading you down that well worn path which is bound to keep this case open for centuries. That path is the reasoning .... "if you can't absolutely prove that it didn't occur..it is then a possibility that MUST be explored." For those of you who are challenged to spend a lifetime "attempting to prove a negative", my opinions in this post will seem to you as quite ridiculous. I intend for this to hopefully be the last time that I mention Mr. Gray! Charlie Black

To all who have responded to this thread : I was originally going to offer apologies to the shoes that I would no doubt step on........I have decided otherwise. This in my not so humble opinion, is as obvious a "Grasp at Straws" as I have EVER seen. It is not a grasp, but a giant leap into space ! I find it unbelievable that members of this particular forum, are so easily swayed. About the only accusation that I have not heard is a possible throat cut by the priest administering last rites. Do you think that the Parklsnd personnel used a hatchet or a meat cleaver to remove the tie? We are talking about SURGEONS. There is no absolute proof regarding the "nick" on the tie. The tie itself was certainly not massacred ! These were persons that removing ties and clothing was a job that they performrd several times every day. They were not mule skinners ! It is equally surprising to me that one can go so far in an attempted alteration of truth, that in good conscience, they could even "intimate" that JFK was not responding to throat trauma as he emerged from behind the freeway sign. Do you feel that he was responding to a hemmorhoid attack ? I wish you would all read, either again or for the first time, my response to this thread in Post # 9. I more firmly than ever maintain what I posted ! I offer no apologies when I absolutely state that I feel this thread has gone Looney Tunes.....and there are no doubt a number of members whom it well satisfies ! Charlie Black

ASHTON Have you completely lost it...or have I ? Who at Parkland would, or "undetectably" could, have administered a throat wound at Parkland that never existed ? Do you believe that it may have been an invisible SS agent or FBI man? Perhaps even Jackie ? WHY on earth would this new and non fatal wound be "administered" ? Do you feel that the Zapruder film depiction of Kennedy suffering throat trauma was the result of his swallowing a piece of chewing gum ? Or was that segmemt fabricated to prove that there may also have been a North Knoll shooter ? (in addition to the "lone Oswald gunman" and South Knoll shooter)? Ashton..I am beginning to seriously worry about you as you are getting not only "curiouser and curiouser".....but maybe "paranoider and paranoider". Ashton, I will pray for your speedy recovery ! Charlie Black

For anyone not to believe what was virtually a unanimously concurring testimony from the Parkland Doctors immediately (immediately being the key word) after the President was pronounced dead, then one would have to believe that all of the Parkland personnel had immediately "somehow" have beeen parties to a conspiracy......which by my thinking is absolutely absurd. I have long been torn between two explanations for this aberation. 1) David Lifton's theory of body alteration or 2) Very sloppy and unadmitted probing by the Bethesda autopsists. I feel both alteration theories have credence. I feel assured that the testimony of Parkland Trauma personnel, which was given on the afternoon of 11/22/63, each of which supports the others, is among all of the testimony in this entire case, the most sound. I cannot documentarily "prove" it, but I feel very strongly that Bethesda knew before the autopsy was over, that this was reortedly an entrance wound that's appearance had been somewhat altered by the trach. incision. If I am not mistaken, Admiral Burkely was present at both Parkland and Bethesda. Burkely was an "Admiral" as well as being the President's physician; and an Admiral's voice "would have been heard". To believe that he would not, during the autopsy, have stated what he knew of the throat wound would be to believe that he was a part of the conspiracy. Burkely was not a small frog sitting on a lilly pad. To become an admiral, one must be connected......to be an Admiral "and" the Presidential Physician, one had to have very high connections. I do not understand the relative "obscurity" that Burkely has been given. This obscurity had to result only by his having been "silenced" by a "supreme being"....as I, in no way, place him as a player in the murder ! I feel that Burkely was intentionally silenced and all but concealed ! Has any researcher ever looked very deeply into this. The ONI had tremendously more influence in the intelligence field than for which they are credited. It is my personal but undocumentable opinion, that the ONI played a much more signicant role in this Coup d' Etat, than some agencies that have born much of the brunt. If I am not grossly mistaken.....this is the manner in which intelligence is designed to perform. ONI could have been the major intelligence player ! If this is so, it stands to reason that they have been among the least publicized possible factor. I feel that much research has been very deeply mired in 43 year old thinking ! We perhaps need to jump OUT OF THE BOX ! Charlie Black

I am quite surprised that this particuar thread did not stir more controversy ! This film has been THE stumbling block of assassination research for more than thirty years. If the film was not available as both a timeline and a CRUTCH to the governments position, the truth of this hideous affair would have been exposed many years ago. This film is a most prime example of the old maxim...B___ S--- "in" produces B___ S___ "out" As long as this film is depended upon to be the "IN" portion of this equation, what can be expected to come out. I feel that most on this forum realize this but, are extremely reluctant to admit that this "Holy Grail" is a man made myth ! We cling to the Z film only, IMHO, because most of what else we thought factual has been disproven. I feel that the only thing that we for certain know, is that JFK was killed at appx. 12:30 CST on 11/22/63, by an uncertain number of gunshot wounds striking his head and torso, which eminated from a shooter or shooters who were concealed in unknown locations ! I very strongly feel that the reason that we do not know more, is that we have been purposely and strategically blocked. The physical portion of this block has been our willing acceptance of a piece of film....which was allowed to be possibly stolen to assist the conspirators in their deception. I feel that we, in reality, have uncovered virtually nothing that could be used to prosecute ANY of the conspirators. What we feel that we have uncovered, I liken to hiding children's Easter Eggs. We still know only what we have been allowed to know. The execution of this crime and the 43 year perpetuation of its cover, has been the most clever hoax in all of recorded history. This by hundreds of times is more clever than the "Trojan Horse Myth." Yet those who most avidly argue my position, bring forth mental giants such as Zavada and Groden, to support the position that because Groden and Zavada cannot explain how this film can be undetectably altered, that there were those with stratospheric IQ's who also could not do so. It is as if they feel that superior intelligence did not exist prior to the present time! I don't even feel that this qualifies as argument. If this piece of garbage (the Z film), is ever exposed for what it truly is....we will then easily have a "Case Closed" ! Charlie Black

You must know what is coming.....especially from me! We have been engaged in a very long thread in which there have been debates, expressions, arguments, semi name calling and insults. However we end it, I feel that we are no more aware of anything, but what have been our individual pre-conceived "SPECULATIONS". I maintain, as I always have, that as long as the extant Zapruder film, is considered by some to be "factual"......there can never be a true factual explanation or determination. You are viewing an experience that "ALL" eyewitnesses who commented on the afternoon of 11/22/63, claim did not occcur ! I too can often question some eyewitness testimony. I cannot question what dozens of persons reported separately and immediately after the assassination. These testimonies which support each of the others. "Everyone", reporting the "exact and identical visual", CANNOT have been wrong. One or two identical eyewitness testimonies might be questioned....but not DOZENS of testimonies which ALL correspond ! You cannot explain the head wound for a very simple reason. Your determination is being made on a false basic premise. The truth which is recognized by a great many who do not have their heads buried in the sand, is that the government / conspirators have presented an unexplainable scenario.....yet you are trying to make sense of a nonsensical situation. It didn't occur as SEEN on Zapruder. Any well acknowledged ballistician will be happy to tell you that what is referred to as "the headsnap", and what was actually a very fast and violent "upward", backward, and to the left, movement of the entire upper body, is not indicative of a gunshot wound or wounds to the head or torso...... short of an artillery round. The President is moved so violently that he bounces off of the back seat cushion. This film should be studied in "real time". No one can explain this movement. It cannot be explained...... because it did not occur ! The Zapruder film is and has been the conspirators ace in the hole because it was meant to cause controversy. Such controversy that seemingly knowledgeable people ask..."if the film was altered, why would they have left in a movement that would make it appear as if JFK was shot from the front. The answer, I will once again state. There had to be immediate "frame excision" because there was something captured in those excised frames, that was far more incriminating and damning to the plotters than what they felt could be passed off, to "most of the public", as an abnormal gunshot reaction....ie "jet effect" etc. etc. ! That most vivid and unreal image of JFK being slammed backward was not of course a pre planned goal. It was an error that resulted by the excision of the "incriminating" frames. They thought this image to be the lesser of two evils....and more easily explained. It was an "undesirable outcome" ! What could be "more incriminating"? Perhaps an image of a shooter or a shot. More than one gunman! CONSPIRACY ! Most have been brainwashed to believe the only explanation put forward in defence of Zapruder film virginity..... that it would have been "impossible" for some of the most brilliant minds in the world, to solve a mechanical problem. The most brilliant people with the most advanced equipment, and extremely dedicated. They could not solve the mechanical problem of altering Kodacolor II film. We can travel to and retrieve samples from Mars.... But We Cannot Alter A Strip of Film ! I am proud to not claim to believe such a ridiculous statement, regardless of how many times Bill Miller and others tell me that I cannot understand because I am too unlearned. Many of you have fallen for, and I can understand somewhat why, the possibly greatest hoax ever put over on an "unexpecting" and naive public. As long as the Z film is accepted as fact..NO PROGRESS will be made toward true closure of this seeming enigma. There is no sense in me further repeating what I have been saying for years. I sincerely wish that I were one of you "True Believers" ! Charlie Black

Hello Ashton "Ebeneezer" Gray I initially was under the impression that you only disliked me because you thought me stupid, uneducated, a poor writer, ignorant of the JFK subject, and in general diagreement with your "learned" thoughts and mode of expression. I am truly disheartened to have finally discovered that, I personally, am not so "singularly entitled" I am apparently merely "one more rotten apple" floating in that savage sea of the uninformed, uneducated and disagreeable. Ashton, if I truly didn't think so highly of you, I would not feel comfortable digging into my emotions and offering you what I have offered very few others in the course of my life. "You should seriously seek help"!......as you certainly seem certifiable. You probably understand that I offer this advice, as could only one who truly cares. Charlie Black

Merry Christmas all : For some reason I am having extreme difficulty in loading "this Particular thread". I therefore expect this to be my last attempt to post on "this" thread. I am going to use this as an excuse to somewhat broaden the original topic. I am doing this only, that some who might be interested, may better understand, "my views" on the shootings....not only the "headshot /headshots". In that many of you will think my ideas quite bizarre, I believe them, and must therefore state such. This is "out of the box" speculation, and I have no PROOF to substantiate it. I also, due to my problem posting in this thread, will "probably" not be able to respond to some of the ridicule which I foresee ! I am not placing the following in necessarily their order of occurrence. A) JFK is struck in the throat by either 1) a shot from the North knoll or 2) by a sound supressed handgun, concealed by "an Elm Street spectator". Concealed in possbly a camera, a hat, a womans purse...or several other possible concealments. 3) A glass fragment from a windshild shot from either position. I feel that he is DEFINITELY indicating throat trauma, and throat trauma only, as Zapruder captures him emerging from behind the sign. JFK is struck in the back as reportedly seen by Secret Service follow up (unable to determine Z frame). I believe this to be a shallow wound as reported, and may have been the source of CE399 "magic bullet". C) JFK may have been struck in Posterior head by a small caliber (.22cal) bullet in the time frame approximating Z311. D) JFK was struck at the hairline, above the right eye by either rifle fire from the knoll, or again by a heavy caliber concealed and sound supressed handgun, wielded by an Elm Street spectator. I think that Connally was most likely not struck by any of the bullets which struck JFK and that he was struck by two separate bullets. I feel that there were three or four bullets which contacted JFK, and two which struck JBC. I feel that there were three misses. Probably a total of nine shots fired from four and even possibley five separate shooters. I feel that the possibly two "ELM STREET SHOOTERS" had the easiest escape scenario as they blended into the crowd with their concealed and "silenced" handguns. This brings me to my final unsupported theory. The Z film was partially altered, thru possibly frame excision, because "A" shooter was captured (probably one of my proposed Elm Street shooters). This excision was "known by the conspirators" to create what appears to be a very strange wound reaction by JFK. However, it had to be done immediately or destroy the entire film. They could not show another "shooter" and maintain their lone nut, deranged, Cuban sypathizer story ! As I stated, I may not be able to answer your counters in this thread....tho I could in another. "...And to all a goodnight" ! "Crazy" Charlie Black

Merry Christmas all : For some reason I am having extreme difficulty in loading "this Particular thread". I therefore expect this to be my last attempt to post on "this" thread. I am going to use this as an excuse to somewhat broaden the original topic. I am doing this only, that some who might be interested, may better understand, "my views" on the shootings....not only the "headshot /headshots". In that many of you will think my ideas quite bizarre, I believe them, and must therefore state such. This is "out of the box" speculation, and I have no PROOF to substantiate it. I also, due to my problem posting in this thread, will "probably" not be able to respond to some of the ridicule which I foresee ! I am not placing the following in necessarily their order of occurrence. A) JFK is struck in the throat by either 1) a shot from the North knoll or 2) by a sound supressed handgun, concealed by "an Elm Street spectator". Concealed in possbly a camera, a hat, a womans purse...or several other possible concealments. 3) A glass fragment from a windshild shot from either position. I feel that he is DEFINITELY indicating throat trauma, and throat trauma only, as Zapruder captures him emerging from behind the sign. JFK is struck in the back as reportedly seen by Secret Service follow up (unable to determine Z frame). I believe this to be a shallow wound as reported, and may have been the source of CE399 "magic bullet". C) JFK may have been struck in Posterior head by a small caliber (.22cal) bullet in the time frame approximating Z311. D) JFK was struck at the hairline, above the right eye by either rifle fire from the knoll, or again by a heavy caliber concealed and sound supressed handgun, wielded by an Elm Street spectator. I think that Connally was most likely not struck by any of the bullets which struck JFK and that he was struck by two separate bullets. I feel that there were three or four bullets which contacted JFK, and two which struck JBC. I feel that there were three misses. Probably a total of nine shots fired from four and even possibley five separate shooters. I feel that the possibly two "ELM STREET SHOOTERS" had the easiest escape scenario as they blended into the crowd with their concealed and "silenced" handguns. This brings me to my final unsupported theory. The Z film was partially altered, thru possibly frame excision, because "A" shooter was captured (probably one of my proposed Elm Street shooters). This excision was "known by the conspirators" to create what appears to be a very strange wound reaction by JFK. However, it had to be done immediately or destroy the entire film. They could not show another "shooter" and maintain their lone nut, deranged, Cuban sypathizer story ! As I stated, I may not be able to answer your counters in this thread....tho I could in another. "...And to all a goodnight" ! "Crazy" Charlie Black

Merry Christmas all : For some reason I am having extreme difficulty in loading "this Particular thread". I therefore expect this to be my last attempt to post on "this" thread. I am going to use this as an excuse to somewhat broaden the original topic. I am doing this only, that some who might be interested, may better understand, "my views" on the shootings....not only the "headshot /headshots". In that many of you will think my ideas quite bizarre, I believe them, and must therefore state such. This is "out of the box" speculation, and I have no PROOF to substantiate it. I also, due to my problem posting in this thread, will "probably" not be able to respond to some of the ridicule which I foresee ! I am not placing the following in necessarily their order of occurrence. A) JFK is struck in the throat by either 1) a shot from the North knoll or 2) by a sound supressed handgun, concealed by "an Elm Street spectator". Concealed in possbly a camera, a hat, a womans purse...or several other possible concealments. 3) A glass fragment from a windshild shot from either position. I feel that he is DEFINITELY indicating throat trauma, and throat trauma only, as Zapruder captures him emerging from behind the sign. JFK is struck in the back as reportedly seen by Secret Service follow up (unable to determine Z frame). I believe this to be a shallow wound as reported, and may have been the source of CE399 "magic bullet". C) JFK may have been struck in Posterior head by a small caliber (.22cal) bullet in the time frame approximating Z311. D) JFK was struck at the hairline, above the right eye by either rifle fire from the knoll, or again by a heavy caliber concealed and sound supressed handgun, wielded by an Elm Street spectator. I think that Connally was most likely not struck by any of the bullets which struck JFK and that he was struck by two separate bullets. I feel that there were three or four bullets which contacted JFK, and two which struck JBC. I feel that there were three misses. Probably a total of nine shots fired from four and even possibley five separate shooters. I feel that the possibly two "ELM STREET SHOOTERS" had the easiest escape scenario as they blended into the crowd with their concealed and "silenced" handguns. This brings me to my final unsupported theory. The Z film was partially altered, thru possibly frame excision, because "A" shooter was captured (probably one of my proposed Elm Street shooters). This excision was "known by the conspirators" to create what appears to be a very strange wound reaction by JFK. However, it had to be done immediately or destroy the entire film. They could not show another "shooter" and maintain their lone nut, deranged, Cuban sypathizer story ! As I stated, I may not be able to answer your counters in this thread....tho I could in another. "...And to all a goodnight" ! "Crazy" Charlie Black

Hello Ashton I am truly happy that you enjoyed the "Tea Party" It gave me a very warm and fuzzy feeling during this season, to realize your Christian nature, when you mentioned those 15 unidentified policemen shooters who were joyously lifted by the rapture. I feel very strongly that their "unidentified" families also experienced great relief at this joyous time. Now that I have sensed your truly Christian inner feelings, I take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very joyous Christmas. Charlie Black

This I hope will be my final post in this thread. When someone tells me that he sees JFK's head "flying forward" ... regardless of which speed that you view this in....there is something seriously wrong with that viewers perception. It makes no sense to argue with anyone who denies such perfectly visible evidence. I can understand those who disagree with my theory of the Z film being altered. But I can't understand anyone claiming to see what Ashton proclaims to see. In the eyes of those persons with whom I have viewed this film, and it has been many....that we have agreed that JFK's head makes a slight movement forward at appx. Z 312. What should be even more obvious to ANYONE watching this film, is that the rearward motion which follows, is extremely fast and violent, as his torso "bounces", as a result of this rapid rearward movement, off of the back seat cushion to an upright position, which is followed by the downward slip, probably with Jackies help, into Jackies lap. Immediately after this, we KNOW that Clint Hill mounts the vehicle and the wound "which he notices", is the absence of the rear of JFK's head. We know that the Connally's were spattered with tiny particles of brain matter which should be expected of back spatter of a shot entering from the front. We know that a motorcycle policeman was struck with considerable force by bone and brain matter ejected from the rear of the President's head wound which agent Hill had described. It was also reported by those in the SS follow up car, that the windshield of their car was also hit by flying brain matter. You dont have to be a physicist or a wound ballistician to deduct that as a result of a shot from a forward position, backspatter covered the Connallys.....and that this shot evulsed the rear of JFK's head, created a gaping opening as reported by nearly all Parkland personnel and a great many at Bethesda. SA Clint Hill also noticed a portion of skull that had been separated from JFK's skull to be lying in the back seat. Typical frontal entering bullet wound....small entrance wound in the front followed by a massive blow out of the rear of the head. A wound so large that medical personnel gazed "INTO" it ! This is the same wound which was reported by Jerrol Custer and others at Bethesha including FBI Special Agents Siebert and Oneil. Since what I have stated immediately above, has been generally accepted by most students of the JFK assassination......I remain unable to even slightly consider Ashton's theories of a violently forward movement of JFK's head and his "assumptions" which to his thinking, support his further "speculations". One would have to be blind to accept Ashton's conclusions....not only blind, but blind and gullible ! Charlie Black

Ashton Your last post was as circularly illogical as anything that I have ever read. You directly addressed nothing which I asked ! I would invite you to try again but by now I am up to my ears in your foolish BS. By the way, since you often suggest that somene initiate a thread regarding the absence of a wound in JFK's throat.....I suggest that you do so. If for nothing more than laughs. You must be a person that revels in typing, as I have never observed anyone that could type so much and express such little meaning. And frankly, I don't care what you are accustomed to doing or how you are accustomed to expressing yourself. You communicate extremely poorly....or perhaps as I have long thought, you have nothing that is worth expressing to this forum. Furthermore, no one has appointed me as any kind of a spokesman for this forum. I express my opinions directly and ask for nothing ! Charlie Black