Charles Black

Hello Pat I can concur with much of what you say. However, what is behind some of my diatribes is that we who "know" there was a conspiracy, are constantly allowing ourselves to be placed on the "defensive". I well realize with both the govt. and the media, which both truly represent only the "wealth" of this country, going to great lengths to support the Bug's BS, that our 80% who are the conspiracy "knowers", are continuing to be "monied" into virtual obscurity. I don't have an answer ! However we will not win a "defensive" battle, as our resources will eventually be overwhelmed......Time has always been "their" greatest ally. Unless something can be done offensively and positively that WILL produce action in the eyes of the general public, Bugliosi will have bought them even more time. Time and fading memories is what is overwhelming us. Their arguments "cannot" be supported by even "common sense".....much less fact ! I feel that taking the offensive is much different than merely fighting off attacks. With no OFFENSE, the most that one can hope is for a stalemate...and that would only be temporary ! It will take leadership which, other than for Oliver Stone's initiative 15 years ago, I have seen absolutely none, other than Garrisons valiant attempt. We are a large Army with no Generals. Armies cannot effectively operate by following democratic guidelines and having majority approval of all factors before action is taken. There has been nothing but talk backing our 4 to 1 majority in numbers. "Talk Ain't Gonna Win It" ! But neither am I delivering anything other than "more words" ! Charles Black

Charles D. Well I'll be damned ! If possible, I may be more shocked than thee ! We must be careful so as not to make a habit of this ! Charles Black

JACK Ahah ! This is what I have been screaming for over a year ! My faith in viable RESEARCH in this case has eroded to the extent that there are only two areas in which I have faith in evidence credibility. 1) The Dealey Plaza "eyewitness" ORIGINAL testimony given NLT mid afternoon of 11/22/63. 2) ORIGINAL testimony of Parkland "trauma room one" staff given during this same period of time ! I have repeatedly stated that this forum of brilliant "educators" has completely closed their minds to ANY introduction of new evidence or theory! This is why I feel that many well versed one time contributors to this forum, seldom or never continue to post here! MINDS HERE ARE CLOSED! Charles Black

Charles D. et al The rifle did contain a magazine in which there remained one unfired round. The person who placed this rifle in the sniper's lair, did not even begin his task with a fully loaded magazine. To any of you who have hunted a "dangerous or very important prey", has there ever been an ocassion in which you purposely entered the fray "without a fully loaded weapon?" Whatever the reason for THIS weapon to have been found in the "snipers lair", this fact alone should indicate to experienced shooters, that it was not used by a seasoned hunter or shooter.....during the "most mportant hunt" in which they would ever participate ! Even if one were to completely disregard the Carcano factory testing....HOW could any rational person believe, without having a pre conceived mind "SET", that a person of even minimal intelligence would have chosen this rifle for ANY shooting purpose......much less the assassination of the most powerful man on earth? EXCEPT TO FINGER LHO ! Is this the type of "research" that some of you suppose will break this case? Is this worthy of even more "CONJECTURE?" There is and has never been one scintilla of evidence, that places Oswald in the firing position at 12:30 CST. I suppose that some of you are "EXPERTS".... in exercise of futiity. You can not leave the 43 year old proven fantasies alone.....what is worse yet IMO...you are absolutely unwilling to address new theories. I suppose that many have decided that if you cannot solve this with the old "evidence"....you are adamantly opposed to any other solution. What is the Name of this forum? OF COURSE I am complaining ! Charles Black

Hello all I am a person who has during my adult lifetime been an target shooting enthusiast, and one who still shoots, as a member of several "shooters clubs", at least once weekly. I have something that I would like to add that should be quite obvious even to persons unfamiliar with shooting. It should be obvious to all but the extremely unreasonable, that the times reported in the current Italian tests are not statements that it would take 19 seconds to "Work The Bolt". Of course merely "the physical opening and closing of the bolt" could have been done in one third that time. What seems to be the stumbling block and a source of great misunderstading to most analysts who do not have considerable experience in actually firing weapons, is not the time required to perform the physical act of bolt manipulation, but the "truly important factor" of target acquisition, "point of aim" toward a "moving target", and most importantly...target "re-acquisition" after the rifle is moved out of position by operation of the bolt mechanism. Acquiring and reacquiring a target, then aiming (two separate operations with a moving target), CANNOT be done successfully in the W.C. time frame, with a telescopic sight...even with one which was not misaligned. Even were one to use the iron sights, the failure to have previously removed the hinderance of the telescopic sight, is well beyond reason. Operation of the bolt "Has Never Been the Issue" ! The time involved in the Italian test, to anyone with the slightest knowledge of shooting, would take into account target reacquisition, and the mental calculation of the moving speed of the target, its angle of declination as well as wind direction and speed. A year or so ago, I suggested a very simple test that would prove to ANYONE in doubt, the difficulty of target re-acquisition which has always been "THE" problem. If one will take a pair of binoculars, acqure an airplane or a bird in flight, even at low altitude, remove the binoculars from your eyes and try to reacquire the bird in flight.....you wil see the diificult of reacquiring in a gunsight, an object of canteloupe size, which is moving away from you at a distance of nearly 90 yards at an inconstant speed. The nearly 20 seconds reported should be near the time required for reacquisition and shooting of one familiar with the weapon....HOWEVER....20 seconds in no way guarantees hits on the moving target. For some reason there are masses of people who have been unable to comprehend what expert marksmen have been telling them for nearly 44 years. It "was humanly impossible" in the time frame given by the W.C. This act is "IN NO WAY COMPARABLE" to skeet shooting with a shotgun ! Though I am certain that some of you will be willing to be seated at your keyboards for an hour in an effort to argue this FACT....very few of you will choose to pick up a set of binoculars, and WASTE the ten or fifteen seconds required to prove it to yourselves. There are many talkers....but few doers ! Charles Black

In that I have participated in "very few" internet forums, I am somewhat at a loss regarding the verbage. Is the difference between "locking" a topic and "deleting" a topic in any way comparable to the difference between "banning" books and "Burning" books? I did not follow the topic in question so I really have no involvement in other than what I consider "acceptable procedure". Is there a list of topics that are banned? Where is it located ? How would one be allowed for example to ban my ideas and yet say that I am still a forum citizen? I feel that deletion of written material, is not at all unlike burning it, and is a quite serious affront to ones "human" rights. Self deleting a topic as a result of the use of or the threat of the use of force by another party, seems to root itself in the dark ages. I can understand censorship of what may generally be accepted as foul language, to protect members of the forum who have the "right" to not be subjected to this. In my opinion, deletion of a topic is not that different than deletion of an individual. If a person is not basically the sum of his thoughts and beliefs....what then is he ? I realize that this forum does not masquerade as a "democracy", but judges here (the moderators), who have never been accepted as qualified by those whom they are moderating, seems unlike any organization, other than the Army, with which I have ever been associated. Even clubs and fraternal organizations have the privilege of choosing someone such as a "seargent of arms" who is acceptable to at least the majority. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the topic in question or even care to. I am strongly opposed to censorship based only on the popularity or acceptance of a given opinion, which is based solely on another's given opinion. How is this form of "moderation" kept from becoming censorship of ideas....who has the right to censor my or anyones ideas? The "proprietor" of this forum has the right to accept or reject members, But the rejection of a MEMBERS ideas, yet allowing someone to remain a member, is a travesty. It is telling someone that you can be a member of my debating team, but you will not be allowed to speak ! In my dictionary, moderation is not synonymous with coerced control! Who needs this type of abuse while engaging in a function that is supposed to be both pleasureable and stimulating ? Either I have completely missed the boat, or this is an definite attempt to supress the expression of personal thought. National Security secrets are not being exposed. Only thoughts that the societies from which we all derive deem acceptable, are in question here ! WHY ? I am not preaching "Anarchy"....but I see no way that the terms moderator and supressor can in any way be linked. What did that crazy colonial rebel say appx. 230 years ago? Something about "Give me liberty or...."? Charles Black

As a result of what I thought was a "waning concern" on my part toward the discussions of this forum, I cared enough to attempt to investigate "the why". I reviewed what I considered excellent enough material to have personally stored from discussions of appx. one and a half years ago. What was immediately apparent to me, was much of my "stored" material involved "posters" whom we have either lost or have lost much of their very frequently shared thoughts. I consider these persons to have been among "the sharpest blades in the drawer" ! JFK, in a speech in San Antonio on the day prior to his death, stated "....and where there is no vision, people perish". I feel this a most profound statement ! If pointed in the direction of research and discussion forums, it has an equally profound message. "....and where there is no vision," Research Perishes ! In my usual "un-humble" opinion, there are many here who habit "navigation" thru only their rear view mirrors. This has spelled a degree of ever increasing stagnation, in which new ideas are often rejected with neither cause nor consideration. This is not only perilous; but insanely so ! It is an attempt to move forward, not by looking forward, but navigating only by the means of knowing what it is that you have already passed. It should be obvious that the voyage of these people cannot have a favorable ending. Their "future" has long been concluded. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that we now participate, for the most part, in a History Discussion Forum. What you will know in the future will never be more than what you knew in the past. Rather than the accustomed response of "getting angry"....why not consider my words as a possibly helpful "critique"....rather than "criticism". Charles Black

EVAN Since you claim to "Have no opinion on JFK"..... Why would you care to have an opinion regarding me? A "whinger"? I don't know, as I am fluent only in English ! But if you mean "whiner"....yes I definitely am ! And I do take considerable offense to "wise asses" who must needlessly interject their comments where they are not needed....particularly in areas in which they claim "No Interest" ! Charles Black

Hello Jack Thanks for the response and you are right ! I will in the future address the events and subjects that are more meaningful and interesting. Yes ! LHO's covert "love life" is something which needs further study. Also the possibility of JFK having been purposely shot by Agent Greer, or his being mistakenly shot by the Agent brandishing an automatic weapon in the follow up car, are more suitable subjects which also could use much more detailed study. Possibly even "more years" of such study. I have always suffered the inability of being able to differentiate the truly pertinent speculation from some of my "fairy tale" conjectures! I will not burden the forum with further "foolishness" ! There are those areas rcognized by all to be much more pertinent. Until I become much more knowledgeable about this particular subject matter, I have decided to do everyone a favor.....by reading all of the more pertinent posts and try to learn a little more of what is of "true value", while attempting to more "limit" my posts only to those areas. I hope that the forum members will accept my heart felt apology for having wasted valuable space and time. I will do my utmost to more sensibly direct any questions to those areas requiring true study, other than my foolish and no doubt selfish whims of fantasy ! Charles Black

This is a thread which requires no response ! I post the following only because "my cowardice" of not expressing what I truly believe, would leave me personally impotent, to the extent that future participation in this forum would be meaningless to me personally, and I would feel that I had taken my final vows, in my ordaination as an accepted "sheep" ! I can accept being called or thought of by some, or even many, as idiotic, foolish, out in left field, unknowledgeable of my subject matter, and a general fool..... If such thoughts or judgements are backed by ANY semi-sound reasoning. In my opinion, which I long ago acknowledged means little on this forum, the lack of "consideration" of a "new idea", by a group which associates itself with the true meaning of the word "EDUCATION", speaks volumes regarding that groups "right", to in all fairness, associate itself with such a title. I have observed and publicly noted what I, and I feel many others, have even acknowledged as "dribble"....or what I call "fodder for fools". This "fodder" has filled this forums with hundreds of thousands of wasted words regarding what has been acknowledged by most (even here), as a waste of costly space and even more costly time. I am certain that some have already acknowledged, that I am referring to a thread which I submitted first on June 14, I think, which was followed by a near shameful series of "personal pleas", on my part, for a response. I even invited "substantiated ridicule" ! If one realistically studies MOST that is discussed on this forum, this subject, by the very nature of its magnitude, and the many misleading theories that have purposely been introduced, does openly invite a great deal of "speculation"....so stating that because my theory is speculative, it therefore does not warrant "consideration".... falls on my deaf ears. I am referring to my thread which is and was titled ["updated approach ?", what do we really know?] This thread was originally submitted, as I have mentioned, on June 14th. There were but two answers that I could imagine as being an unacceptable response, and those of you who are well versed in this subject, understand why. 1) This subject is ridiculous because it has "been proven" that undetectable alteration of this film is impossible ! 2) Your proposition is "purely speculative" ! My purpose was to have you, with your vast knowledge of most of the factors thought to be involved in this case, explain to me, even however harshly, the ridiculousness of my proposition....Or how is it less viable than The/A lone gunman or the Magic Bullet theories, which have preoccupied most, in my opinion ridiculously, for 43 years? My opinion is that considering all venues in which this topic has been considered, a failure of response ( by all but a very few ), casts doubt that the educated members of this forum have not, CLOSED THEIR MINDS, as they have so often accused their opponents in this debate. Charles Black

I am most happy to see that Charles Drago did in fact get one thing right. He is correct in his inference that Custer did not CONFORM to "Textbook Formulae". That Mr.Drago was the whole point. And that exactly sir is why he was solely responsible for the unecessary extermination of his command, in an event that could only very loosely be characterized as a "battle" ! Charles Black

Charles Drago In my part of the country only the poorly bred, when confronted with errors of their mouths doing their thinking rather than their brains, decide that their only recourse is "name calling". It is obvious that you have fallen to that low level. You are right about one point only. The LBH Battle lasted from the mid afternoon of June 25, thru the night and on thru June 26th when the remainder of the 7th cavalry was relieved by the force with whom they were originally ordered to have joined on the 26th of June, prior to attacking. It was planned to be a multi pronged attack by a much superior force. This was the "Battle Plan", to which as many times previously, Custer had paid little attention. It was a plan to ensure victory. Because I stated that Custer expired on June 26 rather than June 25th, it should be obvious to any follower of this thread that my "written error", was not due to any confusion regarding the major factors of this battle. It was a hurried error of expression...and not a misunderstanding of fact. However you Charles, being the affable gentleman that you are, when confronted with your total misunderstanding of military procedure, chose to state..."Good God, your ignorance even of the copiously documented uncontested events in question is inpenetrable ". That statement to me was a true childish response to the embarrasment that your lack of military understanding was very obviously unveiled. Anyone who has truly made a significant point in a debate, need not refer to the other party in such a manner. In even elementary psychology, this behavior is an angered admission that one has been soundly defeated and has recourse to nothing other than name calling. It must be quite demeaning to you, to realize that you continue to be "outdone" by one whom you so readily characterize as "Ignorant" ! Frustration does tend to seriously anger! Another "Major Indication" of your lack of knowledge of the events which are referred to as "The Indian Wars" is your statement that...."Custer was in fact a witting and horrifically effective instrument for the extermination of the tribal peoples of North America". This Charles Drago, is quite another "untruth"....perhaps a little fib ! He had no success figthing the tribals except on those occasions when the great percentage of the enemy engaged were women, children and the very old. In his reports, he inferred "these Hostiles" were warriors. The true fact is that Custer had very little success as an Indian Fighter, as any who have studied that period and place in American History, referred to as "The Indian Wars", will be eager to explain to you. Charles Drago, you unfortunaely are what is referred to in my section of the country as an arrogant "Blow Hard". Since military history is apparently not your field of expertise....would you mind telling me what is.... as I have no clue based on your self seeking and often ill informed ramblings on every subject that emerges. One should not enter events in which they do not have the qualifications to compete or truly add to the event. As usual you immediately prior post, except for the mention of one date "correction?", stated nothing of significance. It indicated, IMO, the angst of an embittered old man who is just beginning to realize his true worth! Ramble on Drago ! Charles Black

Charles Drago If you ever commanded troops, I don't suppose that many are left that could criticize you. Your hero Custer committed nearly every battlefield error on that June 26th possible. Every decision which I originally enumerated was a mistake. Whether he had success in the past disobeying orders, attacking without proper reconaissance, and splitting his forces is why, I had in a prior post stated, that it was only luck or providence that prevented him from having a command unnecessarily slaughtered a decade and a half earlier. It was referred to in the military at his time as "Custers Luck". This was meant to infer, that despite his continued and repeated mistakes, that he had somehow come out smelling like a rose. He had received a court martial within his last year, was nearly dishonorably discharged for improper procedure. He had been suspended from duty for one year with no pay. It was with reluctance only and with the persuasion of Generals Sherman and Sheridan that U.S. Grant conceded, and allowed him to engage in the planned engagement. He was very nearly court martialed on another occasion for abandoning a Major and his troops on the battlefield, without searching for them. They were later found to all have been slain. The mistakes which he made on that 26 June were not "new to him".....he had made each of them on many prior occasions. He is an prime example of the "Peter Principle" in play. He had thru LUCK, not tactics, risen to a position above his abilities.....and he continued to show both that lack of ability and disconcern for his troops. His cavalry commands suffered the highest percentage of casualties of any cavalry unit in the War Between the States. He was willing to pay for glory with the price of men. He tried it however, once too often. It was never a question of "IF" this man would be the cause of a calamity; only a question of when. There are many who defend the indefensible actions of this "HERO". His unglorious end was not the result of any actions, or lack of, by his primary subordinates, Major Reno and Captain Benteen. But his own disregard for the most basic of still accepted tactics, a failure to communicate his plan to anyone (if he had one other than shouting "Charge"), and one of the most blatant examples of not knowing or understanding your enemy. Some may commend your praise for Custer. But his was however, one of the most chaotic examples of poor and undisciplined leadership that can be found in the history of any military commander. He put himself into such a position that he could not be supported without the slaughter of what remained of his command. As a matter of fact, several years later, Major Reno requested a court martial of himself which was convened. He made this request so that he might defend himself against the Charles Drago's of that era, who were confirmed Custer enthusiasts. The court held that there was no wrong doing or the withholding of support for Custer, by Major Reno or any of the command. None of the tactics which he employed can be defended as being militarily sound....neither then nor now. He even carried a number of the male element of his family with him. He may have, were it possible, considered himself lucky to not have survived his "last charge".....He would have no doubt been immediately and severely disciplined and discharged from service. Enough has been said...at least by me ! Tho I have barely begun ! Charles Black

ALAS ! IT IS NOT GOING AWAY ! With all of the intellectual resources which participate, from many different angles of approach, to the varied topics which present themselves on this forum......why will not someone suggest to me what is SO RIDICULOUS regarding what I have proposed. Please show me the error of my ways! If not....why will anyone not consider this? Thousands of words have been over the years been so redundantly wasted on topics such as Agent Greer shooting the President....or his having been shot from the Secret Service follow up car ! I must certainly be certifiably insane! I truly believe what I have proposed is much sounder and more reasonable as well as possible ! There can be no doubt that it was doable ! I am not going to post a dozen references why film alteration could undetectably be done.....however I feel that it is quite "detectable". I will refer you only at this time to the presentations of Dr.David Mantik. You are going to feel like one stupid group of educators if what I have proposed and begged for response, in the end, is in fact a part of the scenario. I have on several ocassions been referred to as, "much less than bright", by several of the more acknowledged members of this forum. I invite "your" brightness to steer me thru this "dark period". I am even saying "please" in my uncultured American manner ! Anyone? Charles Black

Charles Drago As usual, I found your last post to be vague, circular, and stating a most "general" point with out the slightest indication that you have studied the subject. You stated that you did not in any way agree with my asessment of the Little Big Horn Battle. I will challenge your knowledge and perceptions. What do you not agree with? Just please answer the following. 1) Did Custer perform proper reconaissnce on the enemy village before the attack ? This would be the most basic and primary error. Attacking an enemy without knowing his strength or position is in military thinking undefendable. 2) Dividing the inferior number of the attacking force into three even smaller units cannot be rationally explained to any military strategist. 3) A commander conducting a military attack without his primary sub commanders even being aware of ANY battle plan, is absolutely unforgiveable and can only lead to chaos and mass confusion.....which it did. 4) He disobeyed his "general orders" by attacking a day ahead of the planned three pronged atack. He did not wait for the other elements as ordered. He imagined a plausible explanation of why he could have considered it necessary to disobey orders and atack with "his command only". He was a known "glory seeker" of the lowest caliber. 5) His attack, as pitiful as it was, reeks of the lack of reconaissance. It became obvious that he not only did not know the strength of his enemy, but worse yet he, absolutely inexcusably, did not even know the layout of the village or at what point he could ford the river. 6) He issued Major Reno orders to attack and that he (Reno) would be suppored by the rest of the force. Custer instead "abandoned" Reno, whose small detachmet was met by the full enemy force. 7) During this attack, he ridiculously had Captain Benteen's third Batallion, acting upon very muddled and unreaonable orders, to proceed away from the village and halt any attempted "Escape" of the hostiles. 8) He proceded with his attack knowng that his needed ammunition wagons were miles away. Charles ! This is but a sampling of the myriad of miltary "very basic errors" which Custer set into play. Please explain to me your understanding of military battle tactics which forces your statemet that you Disagree with my tactical asessment: as you most always "disagree with most that I post". Pleae don't circle away from this post by stating that it is "Unworthy" of your reply...as you have done so frequently in the past. Let us hear from you Charles Drago ! Charles Black

Confuse...Divide....Conquer has been accepted and successfully practiced since before actual recorded history ! It is used, not only in battle, but in competitive sports, politics, courtrooms, advertising, as well as among competing business ventures. Division in the "research community" should be expected; as it should in any community of bright and free thinking individuals of much more than modest intellect. God Bless freedom of thought and expression. My feeling, bottomline, is this freedom of thought is what led many years ago, to this case, for all practical purposes having been long solved. Anyone serious in this study for a number of years, KNOWS the important answers! In general terms, I feel that most realize, regardless of what "pawns" or "mechanics" were used and regardless of what their names were, or where they were individually located at 12:30 CST, Nov.22, 1963.....and regardless of the multitude of enemies opposing the Kennedy's.... Most realize that this had absolutely to be the planning, organization, and ensuing cover up which only could have been undertaken by the highest elements within the U.S. Government and its agencies. Perhaps elements were used, but neither organized crime nor anti or pro Castro cubans were "required". They were not "required" but have been successfully set up and used by those within the power stucture as red herrings. These Red Herrings have confused ! The result of this confusion has been "Division"! However the final step...Conquest....has not followed. "Intellectually sound thought" cannot be confused, supressed or conquered. In my opinion...YES, Bugliosi won..."the immediate battle only"... as he has no doubt further confused the less informed. But in my study of his 1600 plus pages of W.C. Report rewrite, he has IN NO WAY added antything that those knowledgeable of the associated "facts" could find confusing or devisive. We have all heard 43 years of B.S. from some pretty lofty and profound sources, and this little former prosecutor, who somewhat stubled into fame, has only reorganized it into a "higher pile". He was paid a lot of money to "re shovel" a mighty big heap of BS! He has been no more, in the true context of JFK study, than a "BS Reorganizer". Conquest can never take place by sources such as are represented by Bugliosi, because the truth is and has been known for some time. They Lost! But I would be greatly surprised if in the lifetimes of we on this forum, that there will be any court hearing or a different acknowledgement from our establishmentarian historians, of the actual events of that twenty second of November. Tho the truth may "set some free"....in this circumstance, it has "the potential" to cause much more harm than will its, in my particular thinking, "BURIAL"! The truth would be acknowledged by whom that are still alive.....who have access to more than hearsay? Would our current decline in world opinion stature be re elevated ? Would there be a violent revolution? Without a complete reorganization of our political structure, is a change in administration, however sorely needed, going to replace what was lost as a result of 11/22/63? What would truly "insure that it could not happen again"? A Nazi type SS? Hell, Hitler was nearly assassinated on several ocassions, so that would not appear either to be the answer. I personally don't care WHO were the trigger pullers, where they were hidden, or what happened to them. They are long gone implements ...tools... with no personalities or feelings. There was a Coup d' Etat formulated, conducted and covered up, by the exact sources and forces that we have long been aware of. There is no mystery involving the combined motivations, the planning or the cover up! I never expect ADMISSION of this! I do expect my being further accused of being a defeatist ! I feel however, that I am a truly patriotic "realist". "Reality" is aligned with neither "victory" nor "defeat" (which at times are difficult to differentiate or define). Charles Black

Confuse...Divide....Conquer has been accepted and successfully practiced since before actual recorded history ! It is used, not only in battle, but in competitive sports, politics, courtrooms, advertising, as well as among competing business ventures. Division in the "research community" should be expected; as it should in any community of bright and free thinking individuals of much more than modest intellect. God Bless freedom of thought and expression. My feeling, bottomline, is this freedom of thought is what led many years ago, to this case, for all practical purposes having been long solved. Anyone serious in this study for a number of years, KNOWS the important answers! In general terms, I feel that most realize, regardless of what "pawns" or "mechanics" were used and regardless of what their names were, or where they were individually located at 12:30 CST, Nov.22, 1963.....and regardless of the multitude of enemies opposing the Kennedy's.... Most realize that this had absolutely to be the planning, organization, and ensuing cover up which only could have been undertaken by the highest elements within the U.S. Government and its agencies. Perhaps elements were used, but neither organized crime nor anti or pro Castro cubans were "required". They were not "required" but have been successfully set up and used by those within the power stucture as red herrings. These Red Herrings have confused ! The result of this confusion has been "Division"! However the final step...Conquest....has not followed. "Intellectually sound thought" cannot be confused, supressed or conquered. In my opinion...YES, Bugliosi won..."the immediate battle only"... as he has no doubt further confused the less informed. But in my study of his 1600 plus pages of W.C. Report rewrite, he has IN NO WAY added antything that those knowledgeable of the associated "facts" could find confusing or devisive. We have all heard 43 years of B.S. from some pretty lofty and profound sources, and this little former prosecutor, who somewhat stubled into fame, has only reorganized it into a "higher pile". He was paid a lot of money to "re shovel" a mighty big heap of BS! He has been no more, in the true context of JFK study, than a "BS Reorganizer". Conquest can never take place by sources such as are represented by Bugliosi, because the truth is and has been known for some time. They Lost! But I would be greatly surprised if in the lifetimes of we on this forum, that there will be any court hearing or a different acknowledgement from our establishmentarian historians, of the actual events of that twenty second of November. Tho the truth may "set some free"....in this circumstance, it has "the potential" to cause much more harm than will its, in my particular thinking, "BURIAL"! The truth would be acknowledged by whom that are still alive.....who have access to more than hearsay? Would our current decline in world opinion stature be re elevated ? Would there be a violent revolution? Without a complete reorganization of our political structure, is a change in administration, however sorely needed, going to replace what was lost as a result of 11/22/63? What would truly "insure that it could not happen again"? A Nazi type SS? Hell, Hitler was nearly assassinated on several ocassions, so that would not appear either to be the answer. I personally don't care WHO were the trigger pullers, where they were hidden, or what happened to them. They are long gone implements ...tools... with no personalities or feelings. There was a Coup d' Etat formulated, conducted and covered up, by the exact sources and forces that we have long been aware of. There is no mystery involving the combined motivations, the planning or the cover up! I never expect ADMISSION of this! I do expect my being further accused of being a defeatist ! I feel however, that I am a truly patriotic "realist". "Reality" is aligned with neither "victory" nor "defeat" (which at times are difficult to differentiate or define). Charles Black

Charles D. & all interested There is another excellent work "Archeology, History and Custer's Last Battle" by Richard Allan Fox, Jr (U. of Oklahoma Press, 1993). It is an archaeological study based on the location of retrieved bullets and shell casings and the placement of where the bodies of the troopers, who were with Custer, fell; which also took into account most of the recorded Indian accounts of the battle. It almost inarguably supports the LaKota reports of the battle which is not at all similar to what most have been taught. Custers troops were highly disorganized and conducted themselves poorly. The La Kota warriors seemed to have been both better trained, better armed (many with repeating rifles), and used better battlefield tactics. There is an indication that the U.S. Cavalry expended but little of their ammunition, and many of them may have comitted "suicide" as was reported by many of the victors. It was a poorly led cavalry attack which was undertaken, much in keeping with Custer's previous battle tactics. It was a "too hasty" and poorly planned attack which was conducted without the benefit of any useful reconaissance, which led to panic among many of the green and inadequately trained U.S. troops, who were outnumbered by better equipped, better trained and much more highly motivated natives. My long study of Custer has led me to personally believe, that this officer, who received a record number of demerits as a West Point Cadet, and who had been previously court martialled and suspended from duty without pay, was an arrogant and undisciplined lout......who with combined factors of being in the right place at the right time, a willingness for his troops to suffer an inordinate number of casualties, and a great deal of LUCK (which should never be discounted), actually "stumbled" into rapid Army promotion in rank during the U.S. War Between the States. I feel that the La Kota on this day in June, 1776, were blessed that the U.S. forces were so inadequately commanded, by an officer who divided his already grossly inferior numbers, into three evem weaker batallions, and had "No Battle Plan" of which "even one officer under his command" was aware. What is even more amazing to me is that reconaissance had always been the "primary purpose" of the cavalry. His (Custer's) unique and personal method, was always to lead a lightly armed group of cavalry as if they were "shock troops". A history of blind charges into the unknown. In my personal opinion, with which some will disagree, Lt. Col. Custer was a brave and arrogant self seeker who lucked into early glory, and was lucky to have not had both himself and his command decimated a decade and a half earlier. "Custer's Last Stand" would be more appropriately referred to as "Custer's Last Mistake" ! Charles Black

Hello Kathleen Please do not take the following as being confrontational, but I deeply question the "meaning" of your statement, that you place the JFK assassination blame "squarely" on the Secret Service. You cannot believe that the Secret Service, as an agency, had even a hand in the planning of this ! As an agency, why would it matter to the Secret Service "WHO" was the President ? The actions of a couple of the more "senior" agents I will agree are questionable.......the performance of the detail, almost to the man, was deplorable... But this, IMO, is far from placing the assassination "squarely" on the Secret Service. In the order of the qualifications of and "payscale" of SS agents.....they are not to be considered as "the top of the heap" ! Charles Black

Cliff I thought the point that I was attempting to make is that "The Body" is/was the "best evidece". To those who do not discount the veracity of appx. 40 Dealey Plaza eye witnesses, the original "expert" reporting of the Parkland Team, and many who viewed the autopsy (and some who participated in it): I place these inputs far above whether, or whether not, the clothing bunched. There is enough evidence which is "pro conspiracy fact" to have PROVEN what occurred, even had JFK been NAKED ! Why, when most accept my preceeding acknowledgements, is there any reason to further discuss the clothing. I personally don't give a damned whether or not "the clothing bunched". Bunched or not.....it does not alter the ACTUAL WOUNDS ! This is like trying to prove that there were ten shots fired.....proof of four does the job ! Why insist on "overkill". If there are those who insist on re-discussing the long worn out clothing argument....I do not argue this apparent right. My complaint is that possible new and valid discussions are neutralized by the subject being "deliberately changed". YES ! Begin "a" new topic on clothing.... or 100 clothing topics if you are so driven, and you feel that you are adding something other than what has been generally accepted. My argument is not with the clothing...but the "clothing" based "misdirection" of the original topic. What is it about my immediately prior statements that do you not understand ? Charles Black

Hello Cliff I accept your realization and willingness to start a new thread...BUT....we all realize that the damage to this thread is "irreparable". This is my complaint, and I feel a very valid and often made one. I have a question that I can't simply make sense of ! Since the HSCA acnowledged, that in all probability, that there was a conspiracy and four shots were fired.......why not throw the clothing "non issue away"? ? The autopsist found no transiting bullet and, "their placement" of the shallow entrance wound to the back would allow "no possibility" of anterior throat bullet exit....and if furthermore the Parkland "experts" described the wound as most likely an entry puncture.....what is there to discuss?.....repeatedly for 43 years continue to discuss? I, personally, am not a glutton for punishment! Unless you are arguing "no conspiracy" and a "single gunman", what can you possibly gain for continuing a 43 year discussion of JFK's clothing? Why not allow what should be, to most "conspiring minds", a dead issue....be buried ? Why not attend to matters which are much more viable, still in question, and can lead the forum "forward", rather than stall it on this subject. Even to those few of you who profess that JFK's early choking type reaction, resulted from a back shot, cannot possibly believe that it at that time exited the anterior throat. Before testimony was changed, the experts at Parkland stated the anterior throat was an incoming puncture....there was no doubt "in the trauma room, on the afternoon of 11/22/63, regarding ths medical conclusion. The Bethesda autopsist found no tract of a transiting body wound ! Where exactly are you attempting to go with this discussion? I don't feel that I can truly be quite this dense? What am I missing ? Charles Black

Hello John Dolva I appreciate your response and effort to relieve my "angst". The problem if anyone seriously examines this question, is really quite simple. If one is willing to seriously consider Z Film frame excision and alteration, there is nothing that is unusual or not tactically sound regarding my proposal. It follows more sound, certain and "much practiced" murder tactics. There is nothing unsound about neither the capability of sound supression or "gun cameras" and other means of handgun cocealment. It answers most of the question marks involving timing, number of shots, angle of shots and assassin "escape"! If not, some 400 posters would have already crucified me ! I don't feel that most truly believe that film and photos "were impssible to alter" undetectably. Why even metion "undetectability", as I find the head snap as well as other movements, QUITE detectable. If not impossible, why would they have failed to alter them....that most primary of all evidence....they certainly had no qualms regarding falsifying a great deal of other "evidence".... and "attempting to falsify" much more. Why does this "most simple of all assassination methods" not warrant / DEMAND much deeper investigation. Is this more unreasonable than Oswald using CE 399 and being the "lone assassin".....how about "The Single Bullet Theory for Pre Schoolers" ? Until minds are opened to the fact that the Z Film and its "legitimacy" are the only true stumblimg blocks, we can expect to drunkenly continue to "stumble"! The autopsy shows no bullet transiting thru JFK's "body/trunk". Yet many continue to believe the Z film upon which everything else is attempted to be based. I still ask someone to explain to all members, my "dimwittedness and absurdity" ! Charles Black

still ain't gonna kwit til I have some rashunal inputting

Hello Ron Thanks for the explanation. There was so much apparent confusion among the "players", it is easy to see how damned near everything was ridiculously "bungled" by the great majority of those involved! Charles Black