Charles Black

Ashton Gray

Was it a "TYPO" ? Or did you actually express that you see JFK's head "fly forward".

When most express something as "flying forward" it has always been my conception that it means a movement with great speed or force !

Do you claim to see JFK's head moving forward with great speed or force ? If so, how would you express the immediately following rearward movement of that head ? An acceleration so fast that it must have approached Mach III speed ?

Do you actually not accept that the violent rearward movement of JFK's head and body almost makes the prior slight forward movement almost negligible?

I suppose that you mean to be saying something valid, but you have certainly lost me, and no doubt most of the forum, in whatever it is that you meant to be expressing.

My perception is and has been, that after a slight forward movement of the head, JFK's body seems to lift and be slammed backward and to the left. In my opinion a movement so pronounced, that if it were caused by a missile impact, it would have been with the force of an RPG !

Charlie Black

Hello Erick

You are correct in that my post was really addressing the validity of the Zapruder film as we currently see it.

However, I have on several occasions fired a MC rifle. The kick is much lighter than an M1 Garrand or a 30 .06 hunting rifle. Firing this rifle with the butt against your forehead would definitely not produce the torso movement as seen following Z 313.

Some on this forum have commented that my referral to Nazi soldiers shooting prisoners who are standing or kneeling beside their graves is inconsequential. It is not. The rifles used and the proximity of barrel to target, if aything, should create an even more violent movement of the target.

As I stated before, it is obvious that the target is not "propelled" and that they merely fall forward.

I cannot argue your statement regarding what is thought generally of the validity of eyewitness testimony. However, in this instance, regarding this particular testimony, we are not asking for descriptions of exact hair color or facial features. We are faced with (I can't immediately quote the exact number without looking it up) multiple witnesses, who are all reporting that JFK "fell over" and was not propelled backward and upward by the bullet/bullets impact.

I also don't like the comparison of JFK to a deer,

but as a hunter, I am sure that neither you nor anyone else on this forum, have seen a deer's body being violently moved by the force of impact which would absolutely defy both the laws of physics and ballistics.

Perhaps in the future, when we might again be discussing the Zapruder film validity, you might wish to readdress this subject.

Thanks for your reply and input.

Charlie Black

Hello Erick

I being a military veteran, a life long hunter, and one who currently actively participates in local shooting clubs....I find your presentation excellent.

There is a question that frequently arises, and I had hoped that you would pick up in John Dolva's post....which referred to a "sledge hammer".

It it a common perception on this and other forums, that when 170 # animals are impacted with a bullet, that they "Hollywood Style", are projected thru the air.

Could you explain to those that believe in this concept, that the impact of a bullet on the face of a target is no greater than the recoil impact on the shooter.

A 170 # animal will do one of three things. 1) The animal will drop. 2) The animal will not drop. 3) The animal will take some steps or run for a while after the impact. But its body will NOT be propelled thru the air.

I have tried to explain this several times, however many are under the impression that the "sledge hammer" or basball bat type lifting and propelling of a body is seen with actual bullet impact on standing or sittings animals, as has been recently falsely depicted in Hollywood.

I have even tried to make the point that if one pays attention, there are many times aired on the History Channel, the actual photos of Nazis lining up prisoners beside a slit trench common grave, and shooting them at "point blank" range with Mauser rifles or 9mm pistols. On these occasions, the victims merely "fall into the grave....their bodies are not propelled (as was JFK's body in the Zapruder film.)

It was reportd by, I think, "all" Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses, whose testimony was taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63, that JFK exhibited no head snap or body snap or propulsion....and that after the head shot / shots, that JFK fell into Jackies lap.....as what ballistically should have happened.

Non shooters do not also realize, that when film of fruit (melons) being impacted by a bullet show the melon exploding from the pressure....that the "base" of the melon is not propelled off of its mount, and still remains on the table.

I have tried to explain that the "violent" up, back and leftward motion of JFK's body is not what has been observed by combat veterans, police officers, or deer hunters.......or the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses.

I would appreciate your input, and I feel that it might be a great help to some of the forum members.

Charlie Black

Where was E.H. Hunt on 11/08/63. If he were in Dallas, a hand delivery of some kind could be possible.

What I think highly improbable, would be for H.L. Hunt, if he were in fact a player in JFK's murder, to be dealing directly with the assassin/patsy.

I don't feel one accumulates his wealth by making stupid moves. However, I understand that during these later years he KNEW that his immense wealth and connections in all important areas, could guarantee proof of his non-involvement. It is said that he truly was "above the law" and had absolutely no doubt about it ! I also find it interesting that according to Madelaine Brown, he continued to enjoy associating with some of the little people.

If the letter is genuine, it could also be to a Mr. Hunt that had absolutely no association with the events of 11/22/63.

Just "another" coincidence ?

If it is a forgery, it would be a somewhat sick but humorous way of pointing a finger at both the CIA and the MI complex. There seem to have been both intelligence agency persons and Mafiosi who delighted in this type of "play" !

I feel that this ball may be "out of play" at this time.....probably forever.

Charlie Black

Hello all

Can anyone understand why the FBI would have wanted Oswald's note destroyed?

If it was a malicious threat against the FBI or the FBI facility as has been offered, I would not think that the FBI would want the note destroyed....as it would tend to indicate mental imbalalance on the part of Oswald. If Oswald were an FBI asset or informer, it is highly unlikely that he would have attempted to communicate anything, mission related, in such a manner.

I feel that it was something very personal, addressed to only Hosty. We know that Hosty had visited the Paine household. We however don't know, how often and under what circumstances.

If Hosty nad seen or had attempted to have seen Marina on several occassions.....for whatever reason......it would have outraged Oswald.

It would also have possibly caused Hosty's censure

for poor judgement or..."conduct unbecoming a Special Agent for the FBI" !

I can think of no other reason to destroy the note.

Of course, it is possible that Oswald was "stupid enough" to discuss classified FBI operations via a hand written and personally delivered note !

However, I definitely don't think he was. Of course this is only "more speculation".

Charlie Black

Tom Purvis

has I suppose entered this thread as an excuse to probably for the ten thousandth time, to re-re-re-re-explain to us, his famous "TWIG THEORY".

Per usual, I expect that Tom will take over this thread by posting so much gibberish that anyone wanting to correspond will be disuaded by knowing that they must re-re-read Tom's ridiculous BS about twigs separating FMJ bullets from their core.

Tom finds it necessary to post a military photo of himself in uniform to impress those of you without military experience. The truth is, that the picture of Tom is no doubt at least thirty years old !

Tom, there are many on this forum, including myself that would probably put your military experience to shame!

Several years ago I complained to the forum administration that Tom Purvis was monopolizing this forum by having eleven different posts...all on the same topics....which of course were the twig theory and his Dealey Plaza land surveys.

His apparent distaste for my complaint has apparently not been forgotten, so he frquently spews venom whenever he sees my name.

To the rest of the forum, I apologize. I well realized and so stated that what I was posting was speculation. However, most of what we each believe regarding 11/22/63 is in fact speculative. There are a "few facts" which most of us accept, and from there we attempt in our minds to construct a scenario. I am an "out of the box" type thinker. I see no point in attempting to impress some very learned members of this forum by "parroting" back and forth much of the same gibberish that has been parroted back and forth for forty years.

I will "pat myself on the back" by saying that my speculation, if given some thought, makes much more sense than many. If we do not speculate...what should we do? I do not foresee earth shattering evidence being made available to the research community in any reasonable period of time.

I feel that we should take what we have in hand and see how much that we can build with it.

As for Tom Purvis.....I expect this to be the last time that I will ever type his name.

Charlie Black

Tho the title of this thread may sound a little elementary, it has provoked in me considerable thought over the years.

While in custody, LHO was asked "do you own a rifle"?.....to which he responded "No".

I feel that it is highly likely that his answer may have been the absolute truth. I feel that he was offered well prior to 11/22, an amount of money for the purchase of his rifle, that was high enough above the rifle's actual value, that "he could not refuse".

This offer, of course would have been sponsored by the conspirators, so that they may have been in the position 1) to test fire the rifle and acquire spent bullets with the proper rifling, produce the "magic bullet", and "secret" the rifle somewhere within the TSBD building where it could have been hidden until 11/22.

Regarding Wesley Frazier, his sister Linie Mae, and the package that was "too small", this still has me confused . Wes was absolutely not the sharpest tack in the box, but I believe their assistance may have been pre purchased......and not being the sharpest tack, Wes "goofed up" in describing the package.

Since I am offering nothing more than "personal conjecture" in this thread, with nothing factual to support it, I will take another "giant leap", again that is pure conjecture.

I feel that the curtain rods story was some kind of afterthought. I feel that Lee "could have" been lured to visit Marina by having been given information by Wes, or someone else, that Marina was entertaining a male guest every Thursday evening.

Since I am this far out in "neverland".....suppose that male guest was said to have been FBI agent James Hosty. Remember the destroyed "Oswald note" of a week prior.

There is so much pure speculation here, that I can understand if members fail to respond to this

"hypothesis" ?

Charlie Black

Hello John

As I have long believed that the assassination was strictly an U.S. upper echelon operation (with the possible exception of a few outside assists), I have a question.

Due to Escalante's association with Castro, do you feel that he would publish anything that he deemed to be NOT in the best interest of Cuba at the present time?

Charlie Black

Tom

You are absolutely right concerning the amount of time requird to for the "first shot".....this shot was both the closest and allowed the most time for a strike ..... however the WC concluded that this shot missed....I don't agree with that either.

Before you expain it to me again, I am familiar with your shooting theory, but I just don't buy it.

I feel that "hit" #1 was to the throat and fired from the front.....hit #2 was to the back...followed in quick succession by a hit to the head, a hit to Connally, and most likely another hit to the head. Interspersed were misses from possibly both directions along with probably another Connally strike. I feel that there most likely four separate hits to JFK, 2 hits to Connally and at least two misses.

My "guess" as to shooters locations is TSBD, Dal Tex, North knoll and South knoll. I feel that the shots fired from the TSBD were primarily diversionary, but that one of these may have struck and "partially penetrated" JFK's back.

I don't believe that LHO "touched" a rifle on that date. I believe that the MC in question was purchased from Oswald by a conspirator, well in advance of 11/22.

As I stated earlier, you need not re-explain to me Your theory. I am familiar with it, but am simply not in agreement !

Charlie Black

Yes Evan & Myra

A scared 24 year old boy with a questionably operable specimen of an M.C. rifle....which he very likely had never fired or practiced with. A boy so intent on assassinating the most powerful man on earth, who had the financial means to buy a better weapon....who chose not to, out of frugality ? ....

who went on his mission without a fully loaded magazine....an optical sight that had not been zeroed in....or thru the use of iron sights while not taking the one minute required to remove the scope, which would have made the iron sights more practical. He placed himself in a position from which he should have expected the immediate return of automatic weapons fire.

As he kneeled there in his confined and awkward position with the sound of the crowds outside, the fear would have his heart in his throat beating so fast that he would have thought that it was loud enough to be heard on the street.....nervous sweat rolling down in his eyes along with the acrid electrical taste of fear in his mouth.....his own death most likely only seconds away.....

Is this really what some imagined happened ? And despite all, he is assumed to have scored at least two hits out of three, in barely the amount of time that it would have taken to rechamber the rounds ?

Is this what you lone nut / single assassin intellectuals have been telling the world for 43 years ? and expecting cognitively unimpaired persons to even consider this ? ? ?

This is so assinine that I even feel foolish repeating it !

And this is "but the tip of the icegerg" in the lone nut mania !

Charlie Black

Richard B

I feel that everyone is at liberty to express their opinion, regardless of what it might be.

So I will express mine ! I (me personally) feel that you are a xxxxx, seeking recognition on a forum, because your offensive tactics, probably restricts greatly any personal relations which you attempt in the real world !

I doubt seriously that you will engage in any meaningful correspondence on this forum.....even if you attempt a record breaking number of posting attempts, as have some others before you, who are no longer here !

It seems to me that your goal is neither research nor learning.......but merely, for some reason, to draw attention to yourself.

Charlie Black

Bill Miller

Congratulations ! I didn't know that you had it in you. In addition to the expertise that you seem to have in so many various fields, I never imagined that you also engaged in philosophy.

BRILLIANT !

Bill stated "...the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man will never know when he is wrong".

I truly have long held this statement as one of the most sadly true acknowlegements.

I however, not knowing the depths of your ability to "self critique", would never have expected this admission.

I think that your statement should earn you the respect of this entire forum !

Amazing.....all of these attributes in one man !

You apparently had an spiritual enlightenment of some form which enabled you to finally acknowlege that there is very little that can be affirmed as mechanically impossible.

Charlie Black

Hello Bill, Craig, Len et al

After seriously questioning my mental capacity by reading again your appraisals of it, I took the time to return and re-read this thread in entirety.

I find nothing ridiculous or illogical about "ANYTHING" that I have stated.

I am not going to expend a great deal of effort here, as I have already stated everything that I believe to be true regarding this. A great majority of this discussion has been given to explaining to the world your "individual prowess" regarding film making, which is really irelevent to my point.

I will give but one example of the type of argument that I am hearing. This is not an exact quote, but it was stated that if there were advances in film technology, the commercial film industry would have been the first to display them. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS ! The film industry devotes its efforts to those areas that generate the most potential profit. How much demand do any of you think that there has been for the undectable alteration of 8MM Kodacolor II film ?

The government and its covert agencies have very different demands. The Airline Industry did not have a demand for planes that would fly and photograph from altitudes over 100,000 feet at speeds above Mach III. There were government agencies however that did, so enough resources were invested that this could be done. It is obvious that the airlines did not attempt to make a commercial air liner out of the SR71.

At the time that the Z film was altered, there was "no" commercial demand.....a "profitable" demand, to alter undetectably 8mm Kodacolor II film.

However there did suddenly come a demand from a source which had unlimited financial power, with access to unlimited mechanical expertise. A one time demand in which money and effort were to be unlimited and that results were "paid for" to be maintained secret.

Why do any of you believe that there was the slightest chance of this being impossible? We are talking about a mechanical problem being challenged by the best, brightest and wealthiest....and the most "scary" and ominous forces on earth.

It was an great achievement, but one which in the "ordinary world" was virtually valueless !

I ardently stand solidly behind everything that I have previously posted in this thread, and I really take no personal offense at your suggestions of my intellectual ineptness.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I have re-read this entire thread......I find nothing that I have written to even verge on unbelievable and certainly not "impossible".

I see nothing more that I can add to this, without continuing to restate my initial points, which in my mind, have not even been "challenged".

Charlie Black

Hello Craig

You can have not the slightest inkling of how happy I was to learn of your joy in hearing from me !

Your messasge brought a bright beginning to my holiday season.

Again I must admit that you were right about something when you mentioned my "... very unlimited ability to understand the mechanics of film alteration".

But I do not have an "unlimited ability" to detect pure and unadulterated BS when it is being spread by those supporting the government position, of an 8mm film that is impossible to undetectably alter.

No reasonable person can claim a mechanical alteration impossible without knowing the ability of the mechanics who are performing the alteration.

Particularly if you consider those "mechanics" unlimited support of money as well as physical resources. This defies logic!

So it looks as if my lack of understanding of film alteration, has at least in my mind, not altered my perception of the illogic of deeming an element of mechanical progress impossible.

I don't doubt that progress is, at this moment being made, in areas that would challenge our imagination.

One of the truly impossible things in life is believing in the veracity of the word "impossible"

when you are dealing in the field of mechanical processes and progress.

Hell, to show you the impracticality of the word "impossible".....I would almost have sworn a few months ago, that it would be "impossible" to further correspond with you. It was "possible" !

Kidding aside, Iam happy to hear that you are well and still "persisting". I feel certain that our "posts" will cross!

Charlie Black

Craig Lamson

is back and is still bottom feeding ! He doesn't care "what" he feeds on......he slightly raises himself....attacks....then back under the rock.

Yes Craig ! Regarding the "handling" of this JFK case, I am suffering some very deeply rooted paranoia. You are correct at least in your reference to me. I am afraid that neither counselling, nor massive doses of mind altering drugs, will ever relieve my absolute certifiability!

My Paranoia has reached the level that I now believe that this government can never be depended upon to do anything, other than cover its ass, regarding previous "dis-information". Present government information is not released unless it bolsters the administration's cause. Disinformation has evolved somewhat. It is now primarily being spread by "contrived leaks". I believe very litte of the governments position ranging from our invasion of Viet Nam to our ongoing invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "New World Order" is not a MYTH !

But Craig.....I suppose that I continue to "miss something" in all of your posts. They contain absolutely no substance. Pure Criticism !

I suppose I should conduct a more thorough study of Bottom Feeders. Your conduct may be the NORM for your species !

I have noticed that your "breed" is often isolated in a separate aquarium. Perhaps this is just an experiment !

Charlie Black

I am accusing no one of lying or doing anything illegal. However, how do I know what Groden's, Zavada's, or any "experts" MOTIVES are when they gave their opinions? Am I to believe because they are called experts, that I am to be naive enough to believe that opinions by experts in any field cannot be BOUGHT ?

Are these men special "Film Angels" sent to earth by the Almighty to clarify the issue. In almost every aspect of this case, I have seen testimony by some of who have been considered "The Most Honorable Men" in our country....testimony that is an absolute lie. I have seen a former U.S. President admittedly alter JFK assassination evidence. Is Robert Groden acclaimed to be, along with his other "credentials", a paragon of honesty and fair play? How am "I MYSELF" to believe that Mr. Zavada actually gives a damned about the "truth" of 8mm alteration.

How does Robert Groden, Gary Mack, or Roland Zavada acquire the knowlege of how many light years in advance of the film industry, that intelligence agency expertise might be? The reason that this debate continues is because it is apparent to those arguing "IMPOSSIBILITY", that not one of those who know that it is "possible" will ever "dare" to show their complicity. If one did dare to do so, they would have to be declared insane or have their loved ones found dead......most likely both.

Our enemies are the "Killers of Kings". Does anyone truly believe that the foulest deeds imagineable,

are beneath their dignity? Every reasonable being should realize that with this much power, that there is NOTHING that cannot be bought.....and not necessarily with money.

I am sure that some of you believe that there was government complicity in historical acts such as 9/11.....the Gulf of Tonkin incident....Pearl Harbor....the sinking of the "Maine....the assassination of the heads of foreign governments.

It has been proven that the U.S. govt. is willing to sacrifice thousands of its own citizens and soldiers in order to fulfill its responsibility of

manufacturing "world democracy". It is our Manifest Destiny ! What is good for those who rule must certainly be in the best interest of its servants.

It should be obvious to most of you that I am paranoid and certifiably insane. If any of you see things as I do, your future is probably not very secure.

Simply said.....I believe from the depths of my soul that there is no issue, no tests or testimony

submitted or admitted by my government, that I should take as being the whole truth.

I feel that there has been so much "evidence and testimony" sworn to by my government, that I know to have been lies......I cannot accept anything government related, not to be tainted or tilted in the direction in which they have chosen to proceed.

There are so many lies and "false evidence" that has been advanced by my government, that I no longer can accept anything as absolute. Certainly not the impossibility of undetectably altering an 8mm KodacolorII film strip.

Charlie Black

Hello Len

Frankly as I have so often pointed out, I know nothing about the production and processing of film. But I do understand a little about the potential difference in the results of mechanical processes and alterations of such, when attempted by different individuals in different settings.

Do you really feel that Roland Zavada, or anyone who has "invented" a product, can state that minds other than his, or equipment other than his, are incapable of accomplishing results, only because he himself was unable to accomplish those same results. Inventing a process does not mean that someone, other than the inventor, cannot go beyond the inventors capability. I believe that Mr. Zavada probably believes what he says.

But how can anyone authoritively claim that they know that something is impossible, merely because they themselves cannot accomplish something.

Can you dismiss the idea that there was someone, or a consortium of someones, that had the ability to go beyond Mr. Zavada's limits ? Can you further believe that if these persons had such an ability, that they would broadcast it and thereby qualify as contributing to a murder conspiracy ? A conspiracy which was their duty to cover up ?

I learned long ago that I was wrong regarding a great deal which seemed impossible. Impossible to some persons may represent but an interesting and conquerable challenge to others.

When attacked with enough force, I feel that there are very few problems that do not deny the basic laws of physics, that cannot be seriously challenged.

"Mechanically impossible" is a phrase that I cannot digest. I feel that there have been processes already developed in secret, that would shake me to my core. Processes far more problematic than film processing.

I think that the impossibility argument has for some time been quite stale.

I am not arguing for someone to prove a negative by asking that what has been referred to as an "impossibility" be proven. I am only suggesting that much care should be taken before declaring something to be "impossible" !

Charlie Black

I always have dificulty with the "non alteration buffs" theory that ....."if the Z film is altered, it would require the alteration of other photos taken in Dealey Plaza."

So What !

However, in my opinion, when I speak of alteration, I am referring to a very short time frame. I feel certain that the Z film was altered during the shooting sequence for one of two reasons... or for perhaps both reasons.

These reasons of course are speculative, because I, at the present time, cannot personally prove them.

Reason # 1

During the original filming there was evidence captured by Zapruder that pointed to ANOTHER gunman or gunmen. In my strictly personal opinion, a concealed and silenced handgun was fired from within a magazine, a camera, a hand held hat, or even a woman's purse by an Elm Street "SPECTATOR"!

Reason # 2

Not nearly as damning, but damning enough, would be the Stopping / Slowing of the Presidential Limo.

Under my assumption that at least the shooting sequence in Zapruder has been altered.....the only "OTHER" photos that would require alteration, were those photos snapped during this exact short time frame, which "MAY" have captured the same evidence.

Without having to look to James Bond or Dick Tracy paraphernalia......there were operational camera concealed guns way back during these "dark ages".

And Yes ! A woman could have been a concealed, silenced, handgun shooter.

I think women have been successfully doing in men,

since long before the original "CAMELOT" !

I have always found it kind of funny how we are always looking for additional shooters hanging from tree branches....or attempting to turn shadows and shrubbery into shooters....or even looking thru Dealey Plaza photographs and identifying such sinister characters such as E.H. Hunt, Genl. Landsdale, and even GHW Bush. What we may be missing is a sweet innocent 23 year old housewife, who is an expert assassin.

I feel that the most successful criminals are those that look the least like a "successful criminal"!

Charlie Black

quote "shoot a gun next to an unsuspecting persons head"

This bullet was travelling at appx. Mach 3. The bullet would have struck its target before anyone in the limo heard the shot.

UNLESS.......shot"S" were fired in rapid succession or from different weapons or locations. It would have been more likely to "feel" the passing bullet.

One would not "hear" it.

Also....shooting a rifle from 80 yards distant is not at all similar to firing the weapon "next to" an unsuspecting pesons head. A tremendous difference. Next to someone's head is loud enough to cause hearing damage. Eighty yards away is not !

I would also like to add that from personal experience, I know that head wounds bleed profusely. It doesn't matter that there is no blood in the brain itself. Even someone wounded in the "ear lobe", exudes a large amount of blood. There are veins and arteries "in the head itself" that bleed profusely. Their need be "no" blood in the brain itself.

Semantics, I don't feel will, to this particular audience, advance the theory of the " Non Alteration Buffs" !

Charlie Black

Hello All

Of course computers are far more advanced now than in the early 1960's. The first hi tech military computers that I had ever been in close contact with, were so large that that bank of computers would not have fit into my house and the air conditioning system in that building would have cooled a hotel.

However, the question has never been posited that computers were as good in 1963 as they are presently. "GOOD ENOUGH" in 1963, is the only

fact which needs to be considered. Good enough to do the job ! Not perfect....simply good enough.

The nuclear weapons were not "AS GOOD" in 1963 as they are now.....BUT, they were "good enough"!

We could not take quite as good aerial photographs from altitudes over 90,000 feet as we can now. But we could still take them from airplanes that could fly as high and as fast then as they can now. And "that" film processing and interpretation was quite "GOOD ENOUGH.

Bright people, who were in posession of more advanced photographic equipment than was available from anywhere else, had the ability to apparently do it "GOOD ENOUGH".

Once again, I will repeat....the brightest people, using equipment more advanced than the best "other" equipment available....being highly "motivated"... set out to solve a "mechanical problem". They did so. Whether that same caliber individual, with even better equipment etc., could do a better job now?

Possibly.

But that isn't the point ! They did it well enough. That is why some of you are still trying hopelessly to prove that it was impossible.

Mechanically "IMPOSSIBLE", if far too encompassing a phrase to be used by any but the highest caliber mechanical minds. This phrase used by any less qualified, has no value in the area which we are discussing.

Charlie Black

Well....since NO ONE will once again address my question after having probably asked it 100 or more times......I take it that my speculation is apparently correct !

Once again....there were chosen persons in 1963, who with their intellectual skills, their unlimited sources of technology, financing and general support, apparently produced on the Zapruder film a most clever absence of anything of factual evidentiary value. In addition to this, they did so, as some claim, although it is highly disputed, that these clever manipulations are not discernible to this day.

There is no meaningful reason for me to continue to post to this thread, as I can do nothing more than repeat what I have already re-repeated !

Charlie Black

Simce I have admitted to my ignorance in several previous posts, I am comfortable in continuing to ask my "ignorant" question, which no one has yet undertaken to answer.

I am not particularly interested in theoretical logic, circular logic, or in posting questions in which one must "prove a negative" in order to reply. My belief / hypothesis / statement is extremely simple.

Based on the technological advances which I have both read of and witnessed during the 20th century, ranging from simple flight to space travel, the cloning of animals and human parts,and the development of means to destroy the very planet upon which we live....the word "impossible", in my thinking, must be given considerable thought.

I cannot imagine any reasonably educated, unbiased, and cognitively unimpaired individual, actually believing that in the year 1963.....if given access the available brainpower, unlimited resources, and dedicated effort.....that there was not only a group that could produce an undetectable alteration of a piece of 8mm film, but there was literally no mechanical problem on earth that could not have been successfully undertaken.

The discussion of mechanical "impossibilities" has eroded into a fairy tale. Solution has become only the ability to combine the "correct thinking" with the "correct materials"!

Both were available in 1963, and long before. This "impossbility" argument was a lame duck well before it was ever introduced.

There is no way that I can view the extant Zapruder film and do nothing other than admire it's introduction, as probably the one "greatest propaganda hoax", since the beginning of recorded history.

When this gross abortion is finally set aside, the simplicity and brilliance of this Coup d' Etat will be long studied.

Charlie Black

Hello Stephen

You are absolutely correct ! So I will alter my question. Could the best technology on earth NOT alter in an undectable way this strip of 8mm.

When I seriously study this film, I have for years been overwhelmed with the totality of what this film DOES NOT SHOW. The only thing that I know for certain regarding this film is that something strange happened to JFK's head. I know that their was an unnatural "head snap" that was not seen by the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses. A head snap that ballistics experts agree that should not have been caused by a bullet impact or even two bullet impacts. I do not see JFK FALLING FORWARD AND TO THE SIDE. I see Jackie making jerky movements on to the trunk of the car. I see Jackie moving so quickly out from under JFK's head that it must have produced further damage. I see Clint Hill doing some jerky things. I can't tell if the limo stopped or did not. I cannot with the naked eye, detect it slowing down. I do see JFK reacting to what appears to be throat trauma or something choking him. I do not know for certain when JBC was struck. I do not know how many bullets struck either JBC or JFK.

When I review this piece of "evidence", I realize that this "evidence" sheds absolutely no light on the shooting. I might add that it creates more questions than it answers. I therefore think that I know why this piece of "nothing" bears nearly the full burden of carrying the single gunman theory.

It has been argued with authority that this film has flaws and shows signs of alteration. It has been strongly proven that what is seen on this film is not what the Dealey Plaza witnesses who testified on the afternoon of 11/22 stated. The wound depicted in this film is neither what the Parkland medical staff reported nor what is seen in some of the autopsy pictures.

I do not place ANY value in certain "experts" telling me that they see no evidence of film tampering. For all that I know, an entire new film MAY have been created. I am however certain of one thing....what is seen on the Zapruder film is not what was reported in Dealey Plaza "on that afternoon". Is one piece of film possibly distorted, or do you feel that all of those witnesses, who testified, independently of each others testimony, were COINCIDENTALLY all mistaken....as were the medical staff at Parkland, and Clint Hill, and Sibert and Oneil, and the enlisted men who were technicians at Bethesda. during the autopsy.

Do we really believe that the BEST EVIDENCE for the single gunman is the theoretical "IMPOSSIBILITY" of flawlessly altering this film. Get serious. This piece of celluloid is very far from flawless in its present state.

My question remains unanswered. I feel that it remains so because a "non ridiculous" answer cannot be put forth !

I am sorry if I have further bored those of you, who thru the years, have been so relunctant to answer my questions.

Charlie Black

I openly admit to the world that I am denser than an oak, poorly educated and living in a past era.

I am unable to comprehend. Acknowleging this, I ask very humbly what I have asked at least a hundred times before. Please humor me ! Someone please take the long slide down to my level and answer the one question that I have continued to ask.

I have been taught that human beings explore space, send missions to Mars that gather and send back data, have invented means of completely destroying all of mankind within a very few minutes, have found the cure to diseases and plagues, conceived the "big bang" theory regarding the creation of the universe, developed the theory of evolutuion, and have even developed the means to "clone" life....even human life.

Please explain to me...... "PLEASE" just one explanation ....WHY....cannot the most brilliant minds on this Earth.....with totally unlimited resources and space age equipment, NOT figure out a way to alter a simple piece of 8mm Kodacolor film?

Unless someone can reasonably answer this.....what the hell do you all insist on continually discussing ? Anyone......PLEASE answer this question !

Either "explain" the "IMPOSSIBILITY" of this mechanical feat, or else acknowlege that this statement is ridiculous. We are not dealing with divine forces here. We are dealing with MECHANICS.

PLEASE....WHAT MAKES THIS ACT IMPOSSIBLE?

I don't mean this post to be facetious. I am dead serious and will continue to ask this question until adequately answered.

I don't have to hear the explanation of "HOW" it

it can technically be accomplished as I am much too ignorant to begin to comprehend it.

Please tell me how you know that in the midst of this worlds accomplishments, that this 8mm film strip, could stymy minds of the level of Einstein, von Braun, and others of this caliber ?

Charlie Black

When considering the mechanical inventions and accomplishments which occurred during the 20th century alone, I do not understand how "anyone" could state that there are mechanical functions, which are not contrary to the basic laws of physics, that could not be carried out when confronted by the best brains in the world !

...

Charlie Black

I don't think the real issue here is the capability to alter the film, per se. We've been doctoring photographs (and film) since the early days of the science/art.

It is a certainty that films, in 1963, could be altered.

The REAL questions, IMO, are:

1) Did ample opportunity exist to alter not only the Z-film, but all the other films and stills?

2) Did the capability exist in 1963 to make alterations that remain undetectable in 2006?

Hello Frank

In response to your question #1

Since I believe that the only alteration that was essential was during a part of the shooting sequence, in which something was revealed that required "covering"......not very many other films or photos were made during this short sequence that would have depicted that aspect that demanded covering. Those few certainly could have been altered or destroyed.

Your question #2

I am not a film analyst. But I have read, even on this forum, those whose primary work is and has been in the film industry, that it is and was possible.

I must return to my initial statement that this revision does not defy the laws of physics, and that it is mechanically possible for some specific individual to have the ability to accomplish anything that is mechanically possible. There have een much, much greater mechanical feats which certainly have been accmplished.

I feel the theory of the "physical impossibility" has been too easily swallowed by too many, who when reconsidering this, should realize that the only thing "impossible" here, is the theory of the "mechanical impossibility" of anything" that does not deny the laws of physics.

Charlie Black