Charles Black

I am reluctant to start writing because I don't have adequate time to address this properly this morning. I will limit myself to a couple of questions regarding some of the manipulation in which the W.C. engaged. (26) Why was Jack Ruby "refused" his request to be taken to D.C. to testify? Particularly since he mentioned that he had much information to offer, but for fear for his life, he would not offer this Testimony while still in Texas. He literally "BEGGED" to testify and was immediately refused by the "head man". He was even so advised by none other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, that if Mr. Ruby really feared for his life that he advised him "not to say anything" ! The Chief Justice actually advised Jack Ruby, arguably the most important witness in this case, to "not testify" ! Would anyone venture a guess as to the WHY of this ? (27) Why were two witnesses who were within a few feet of the autopsy table, and who were the most highly qualified persons in crime investigation present at the autopsy, and who were there for the "purpose only" of documenting this procedure, not called to testify ? SA's Seibert & Oneil of the FBI ! (28) Why would the President's physician, Admiral Burkely, who was present at both the Parkland Trauma Center and the Bethesda autopsy not called to testify. A person most familiar with both the appearance and health of JFK ? His "expert" testimony could have cleared tha air of any questions regarding the reported appearance of Kennedy's wounds at Parkland and their appearance at Bethesda. It would have cleared all questions involving the alleged autopsy photos presented as evidence that were claimed to be JFK at Bethesda ? These three little questions can have but one realistic answer to anyone not trying in vain to argue the government position ! Regardless of where one stands on this matter...... the truth is that these witnesses were "purposely not called". There can be no other reason when one takes the time to merely glance at the list of witnesses who did appear. This isn't a question for "Rocket Scientists" ! Does any L.N. or single assassinist have an answer that could be believed by any open minded person of average intelligence? You folks become scarce when faced with the very obvious truths ! Charlie Black

I feel that it is well accepted across the U.S. by all but the neo cons, and those too young, too lazy or too immature to seek out the truth, that watching Fox News or Bill Oreilly is openly inviting oneself to be manipulated. I feel that Bill and the Fox Network are extensions of the present U.S. administration and the mere mention of them as an authorative source of truth, self defines one as a member of the "flock" ! On this or any other JFK investigative forum, using Fox as corroboration carries as much weight as using the conclusions of the W.C. Report. The mere mention of this class of "reporting" as having meaningful significance, "brands" the poster before another word is read ! Charlie Black

Craig I am getting embarrased ! I have never been showered with so much attention by a forum member. All of this and you haven't even seen my beautiful portrait ? By the way I feel it only fair to tell you....I am happily married ! Charlie Black

Craig For the laughs, you are quite welcome. I would imagine that some of my forthcoming posts will really put you in hysterics. Charlie Black

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while. I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you! Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions??? Bill Miller no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please.... Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again? Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture... In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker. WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules. uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter? Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we? Mr. Lamson I am impressed. I wonder why you are so adamant regarding my posts ! Could it be that I say things that irritate you? Are you really going to tell the teacher? Healy is absolutely correct. My picture was not a requirement, tho what I said about posting it is fact.

Bill You know quite well that there is no "expert" testimony from a world class ballistician that states that JFK's violent movements following Z312 are at all natural. Very much evidence to the contrary. I do not claim photographic expertise personally, but I am certain that it is widely acknowleged by many members of this forum, that much evidence exists which strongly supports alteration, excision and manipulation. I stand firmly behind everything hat I stated in my post. Why do you sound surprised that my post proposed a "theory" ? For the past 43 years most of what I have read and studied regarding this case is a theory. If we were working with absolute facts, we would not still be engaging in this. "The Warren Commission Report" is one of the poorest theories available. It has to be theory as it certainly is not based on fact ! Charlie Black

Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black

Also, I feel that except for a select few, the honor of the virginity of the Z film is no longer protected and defended with the vigor which it once was. The argument that the "virginity" of this film strip stands alone, although it is world known that it resides in a brothel of tainted, misrepresented, mishandled and "soiled" evidence, which was in most instances handled only by the U.S. government and its agencies is, I at least feel, beyond absurdity! This group of staunch Z film defenders have tried to lure us into their fold, with what I feel are three of the meekest arguments in this entire case. As far as I have been able to determine, these three arguments are: 1) It was physically impossible for anyone or any braintrust to have manipulated this 8 mm film strip in 1963. 2) It could not be altered because this would have required the alteration of all of the other film taken in Dealey Plaza on that afternoon. 3) If it were truly altered, why would "anyone in their right mind" not remove the JFK "headsnap", which would indicate to most viewers, a shot from the forward right (thus implicating another shooter) ? Before going any deeper, I would like to express why a small portion of the film was "crudely" and hastily altered. I am referring only to the initial alteration, possibly by frame excision, of those frames immediately following Z frame 312. The "original" film captured absolute evidence of conspiracy and more than one shooter. This original film was viewed by Dan Rather during the evening of the assassination. Although many believe that Dan's testimony was a lie when he stated that JFK fell into Jackies lap.....this is what was reported by Jackie, secret service follow up witnesses, and the preponderance of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses. They all (on the afternoon of 11/22/63, before some of their testimony was coerced and later changed) stated that The President "fell" into Jackies lap. There was NO reported "headsnap". There was no violent upward and backward reaction reported. It did not occur. No bullet, short of an artillery piece, carries this momentum. Well then, why is it on the film? My "theory" is that during the initial viewing, what was shown was JFK falling into Jackies lap. This is what occurred and this is what was reported by all on the aftrnoon of 11/22/63. However there was somene viewing this film saw something that others missed ! Something that the conspirators absolutely could not allow to remain in the film as it indicated definitely at least a "second" shooter. An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect. It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body. A decision had to be made: 1) Destroy the film 2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged 3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy. Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct ! The general public has become aclimated to the Hollywood versions of gunfights in which people who have been shot are often projected, sometimes even airborne, backwards. The truth of bullet momentum and impact is that the force that the bullet exerts on the target is no greater than the mometum of the recoil. I, as well as some of you, have fired a similar MC rifle and realize that it doesn't have a forceful "kick". "ANYONE" with a knowlege of ballistics will verify this point. An immediate referal regarding bullet momentum and impact, can probably be most easily found in Dr. David Mantik's contributions in the books "Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". This should answer question #3. The conspirators did not want this unnatural movement depicted.....it was the resulting false reactions which resulted, I feel, from the frame excision. I feel that the answer to question number 2 is very easily explained. In the very short timespan which encompassed this excision, there were very few other shutters being snapped. There WAS NOT very much "other" film evidence which required manipulation. Do any of you believe that there is instruction in any military or intelligence manual, that states in the event of a Presidential assassination, that the immediate response is to confiscate film and cameras ? Don't worry about returning the gunfire or searching for assassins or weapons.....the important thing is to "seize" photographic equipment. This was the ONLY reaction by authorities. WHY ? Now for question number one. You have been asked to believe, and some of you do believe, that there was not the brainpower within the capabilities of the United States and its intelligence agencies, and the billions of dollars which were available to it, to have altered a strip of 8mm Kodacolor film. We have technological capabilities that can send and return men from moon exploration. Gathered soil samples from the planet Mars. The ability to clone animals and human parts. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter a strip of 8mm film ! This film, is in my very serious opinion, "THE" stumbling block in this investigation. Without the false information produced by this other piece of altered evidence, the entire case changes. Faulty premises are of course followed by faulty conclusions. We need to wake up ! Charlie Black Charlie Black

Testing testing SORRY

testing

This is a test message posted by the administrators.

This is a test message from Charles Black's account posted by the administrators

Thank you Ryan. The above weighs both heavily and proudly on all who have worn the uniform. John seemed to always do as he had always done. And those things very courageously were, far above and beyond the call of duty. He certainly rests with those few very honored. Charlie Black

Thank you Ryan. The above weighs both heavily and proudly on all who have worn the uniform. John seemed to always do as he had always done. And those things very courageously were, far above and beyond the call of duty. He certainly rests with those few very honored. Charlie Black

Mark & Mark I am in agreement with both of you. And yes I do think that the current government disillusionment may be the closest chance that we have had in a long while to approach this. Tho a Texas inquiry is a possibility, those folks are proud people that are deeply rooted in tradition and pride. I certainly hope, but have not much confidence, that they would on their own initiative, delve into this. But we can hope. Charley Black

Alan Do we know whether this was photo'd prior to or after being subjected to probes by both finger and metal probe? If this were a defective (very low velocity) round, would burning be expected? Also, the higher the velocity of a FMJ bullet, the closer to a puncture would a wound appear. A low velocity bullet would punch its way thru as opposed to a high velocity round which would perform more like a drill. The low velocity would produce the less "neat" and more jagged hole. Charlie Black

I have returned to this thread for one reason only. It is the reason behind the reason that I initially introduced it. As time and the years are quickly passing, and I realize that my time also is, I have developed very serious and disturbing doubts that there will be a reopening of this investigation as was recommended by the HSCA. The only avenue that I interpret as viable, would be a presidential order, either thru a special prosecutor or some other independent means. An investigation with unlimited subpoena power along with the authority to grant immunity. Not a government controlled investigation. I do not see forthcoming action at any time by the Justice Dept. If this doesn't occur, in another 43 years there might be a handful of old researchers still scratching their heads and communicating by whatever means that might have replaced the internet. There is, tho I do not expect it, the possibility of new evidence or a deathbed confession, either of which would be very circumspect and certainly open to much questioning. It seems to me, that both by my reason and by what a few of you have expressed, the office of the President does in fact have the power, and probably the only true and effective power, to effect this. I realize that it would take a person with courage and moral integrity that I have never witnessed. Does anyone see any other way that action is "likely" to be taken. Not just a hope that it will happen, but a reasonable assuredness that this will take place. As a child, I held to the possibility of miracles. I no longer receive satisfaction from such a possibility! If this is in fact our only possibility, I feel that we have very litte hope. I don't suggest that any of us ends his research; I am merely reaching for a semblance of hope. Have we such? Are we at a dead end? Regardless of what might be uncovered, there must be a means to present it to the world. Charlie Black

Hi Chris Not silly at all Thanks. Am greatly indebted to you. I knew that she had not been feeling well! Charlie Black

Pat Very good post and sound logic. Warren's actions and at other times, lack of action, point very strongly that he had been thoroughly convinced of the potential horrors that could result in the "wrong" outcome of the WC conclusions. His handling (intentional bungling) of the Jack Ruby interview, I feel,is as important as the distortion of evidence that occured during the establishment of Oswald's guilt. This entire episode of our history has destroyed, for all of those conscious enough to have given it thought, any semblance of the credibility of the U.S. government. Further destruction occurred as a result of Watergate. The coup de grace, tho not needed, has been our quest for those very elusive weapons of mass destruction that are "known" to be buried in the deserts of Iraq! Charlie Black

I realize my near total lack of knowledge in this field so I don't mind asking a couple of simple questions. Was there no trust in forensic pathology in 1963? I know that there were many forensic pathologists practicing. Was it considered an inept or inadequate science? If not, why was one, or better yet several, not called upon to determine the specifics of the death of the man, who was generally recognized to be, the most powerful person in the world of politics-----not to mention that he was a very rich and powerful person in his own right. A person whose shooting murder was to be investigated by no one less than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. As a Catholic myself, I do not know of a forbidding religous reason that the burial could not have been delayed for a day if neccessary. Why not have persons who were best in their field conducting this autopsy? Why did Jackie, Robert or Ted not demand it? I of course know a few obvious reasons, but has there ever been a legitimate reason given? Why was it neccessary that an autopsy be conducted within eight hours of his death, with whatever poorly qualified pathologists that might, at that time, be available? I would think that Mrs. Kennedy's meticulous attention to detail and protocol regarding nearly everything else in her life, would have demanded nothing but the best, as was her custom. I would think also that J. Edgar, with his own attention to detail, should have been demanding the same and not want any doors left open to potential criticism of his investigation. Unless of course he did not want "correct" forensic detail. In my personal experience,things that do not seem correct and logical, usually are not. This autopsy scenario becomes more and more ridiculous as I merely scratch the surface of potential problems. Conspiracy clues become more and more prevalent as each aspect of this case comes under more and more scrutiny from people who are no more qualified than even myself. "A mystery wrapped in an enigma"? Not really! There seems to be much motive for many people, tho not Lee Harvey Oswald, to want the President out of the way and that guilt be placed only upon an unguilty, tho misguided, patsy. Charlie Black

Jackie Kennedy I would ask her to compare the way that Jack looked while on the table at Bethesda with the autopsy photos of Jack's head. I would ask her who who were the "they" who killed her husband. How many shots were heard and where did they come from. Why was Jack clutching his throat. Where on his head did the shot impact. What was the timing. Why the Kennedy's supported the coverup and still do. Does she feel that Hoover and LBJ were parties to the killing. Charlie Black

Should any members be still interested in this purely speculative thread, please consider the following. Tom Purvis has no doubt spent an estraordinarily great amount of time, both in this thread and in many others, which have focused, as best that I can ascertain, on his speculation that LHO did in fact shoot Pres. Kennedy with his MC rifle which was purchased from Kleins Sporting Goods. This expenditure of time and effort has culminated in this particular thread and is based on this above cited assumption. I do not question his right to this or to any other theory. However I do question some of the "facts" which he refers to. In my post #35 of this current thread, I requested referenced substantiation of his "facts" and theories. What I would like to see is, but is not limited to, the following: 1) "please list the forensic and ballistics experts" referred to who have made a study of "this" case and references to those particular works. 2) Please explain "proven that LHO shot at Gen. Walker"-------- I personally have no faith in the validity of the testimony of Marina Oswald, particularly at this point in her life. I cannot prove, but I most certainly believe, that these statements, which were made regarding this particular time period, were made under extreme duress. I do not understand how anyone might study the methodology used by both the WC interrogators and the FBI and not determine that their goal was to produce "Only" the answers which they sought. I feel that due to this power held over Marina, a Russian immigrant and the alledged Presidential assassin's wife, and who was also potentially an accomplice after the fact, that both the FBI and the WC could have enlisted any testimony that they desired from Marina (as they certainly did from a great many of the other witnesses). 3) Please show "substantial proof of the existence of your `magic limb'." I feel that without, at least all of the above, this line of reasoning has been both a waste of time and an excercise in futility. This also, is in itself OK, unless one conjectures that this same time and very strong effort may have been directed toward a more promising end. Charlie Back

Tom It is very seldom that I break my word, but your wild speculations have forced it for this last time! Unlike Oswald, I have many times fired both rifles as well as pistols equipped with scopes. I don't particularly like scopes for several reasons: 1) Live, moving targets are difficult to reacquire in the event of a miss. 2) As a hunter, I placed more value on the art of stalking, rather than long range shooting. 3) In the military, I never used one because I wasn't issued one. 4) I, as would anyone familiar with shooting, never attempt to use a very cheap scope or one that is misaligned as a result of improper mounting or a scope that has not been sighted in before each shooting venture. Furthermore, I have found NO substantiated proof of the existence of your "Magic Limb". It has never been proven to me that LHO ever shot at Gen. Walker. Other than Ozzie being a "dirty red commie", why would he have? Just target practice for the President? Perhaps you feel that he was a "mad dog killer" that truly needed no motive other than the "thrill of the kill". Please list the forensic and ballistic experts, to whom you have referred, and who have made a study of this particular case. As a particular treat for, we the unknowing, how about some scholastic refernces if you feel that we, the few of us that are smart enough to read, might be able to comprehend. I say now, hopefully for the last time, that I will not respond further to your unsubstantiated meanderings, that haplessly range from the T.H. Purvis geneological study of Southern Aristocracy, to your "magic limb' theory, and forward to your belief that only you personally truly understand the complexities of firearm operation. Tom, I personally find your arrogance appalling. Once again, "A legend in your own mind". So long Tom Charlie Black

Tom I feel that you attempt, at times quite effctively, to distort both testimony and "facts". In reading Bennet's testimony, I never considered the fantasy that he meant to imply that he saw a MachII bullet flying thru the air! I interpreted it in the manner that I feel that he meant it. He witnessed an impact! He saw something impact the back at appx. 4 inches down from the shoulder. At the time that he wrote this report, how could he have known that a back wound would be found? Do you really feel that he wished to report to his chief that he was so gifted that he had the extraordinary ability to see medium to high velocity bullets flying thru the air? Perhaps he could also leap high mountains! Another point that I would like to make in reference to an earlier one of your posts. Yes I have been shot at. Yes I have seen people shot. Yes I think that Kennedy is responding to an anterior throat wound with a closed fist, but this is not the result of my witnessing a throat shot. This is the result of witnessing someone who had suddenly become choked and his reaction was to bring both closed fists, palms outward, immediately to his throat...... "Exactly" in the manner in which Kennedy responds as depicted in the Z film. One more thing that I would like to mention. At the close proximity of the theoretical oak limb to the rifle scope, a one inch diameter branch, which is quite large, would be so obvious an impediment when appearing in the reticle of his scope, that no shooter in their right mind would have squeezed the trigger at that exact instant. A sniper would know the potential instability of the round which he was firing. If he were a seasoned shooter and knew this, why not take a different shot..... only a millisecond sooner or later. Tom, I find some of what you say quite credible. I find much of what you say to be absolute pure speculation. I truly feel that you are becoming a legend in your own mind. I think you are often so far off base that it upsets me when I feel that I must respond. You have established youself thru your bio. to be such a firearms and ballistics expert, that the majority of people on this forum feel, I'm certain, that they do not have the credentials to challenge you and therefore acept your speculation and far out theory as fact. This only is why I have once again responded. I am sure that you wont be heartbroken, but I intend for this to be my last response to anything that you post regarding those particular few seconds in Dallas. Charlie Black

It was brought to my attention via Email that it would have been much faster had the shooter used the iron sights rather than the scope. Although this is true, I feel that if the shooter were truly a Marksman, as he must have been to make the alledged shot with either set of sights, and he had planned to shoot the U.S. President, I feel that it was an important enough event that he would have decided well ahead of time which sights he would use. If my presumption is true, and had he planned to use the iron sights rather than the scope, he no doubt would have removed the scope, because at best, it is a hinderance. I therefore feel that he intended to use the scope, and most likely did so. With the most important shot of his life in the balance, he must have given it forethought. Charlie Black Charlie Black