Charles Black

Eighty killings per day in the U.S. with handguns. One must understand first, several seldom thought of conditions. Due to both the "size" and the ethnic mixture in the U.S., I am actually surprised at this "low" a number. This is 1.6 killings a day in each of the fifty states (most of which comprise a very large area and are well populated). If I am not mistaken, the state of Texas alone is larger than Germany. Also not mentioned here is the number of killings per day sans handguns. There is also a "war on drugs" being conducted in the U.S., but I wonder how many "deaths per day" are due to drug overdose of illegal drugs, or deliberate misuse of prescribed drugs? How many killings a day, by one means or another, are the result of domestic dispute, which if not committed with the use of guns, would not have occurred by some other means? If children can procure illegal drugs, do you think that "potentially violent" adults could not find a way to posess illegal firearms? I also wonder that due the phenomenal number of traffic deaths, should we: lower speed limits to 20mph----ban alcoholic beverages----or to be certain, just ban automobiles. Killing occurred, according to the Bible, within the first family that God had created. And not with a handgun ! The act of deliberately killing, is itself legislated against throughout the entire world, and in many areas punishable by death. But does this prevent it? What occurred was an "absolute horror" ! Thirty two people at least. But how many mass murderers, have one victim at a time, killed many more people before being caught? How many wander around and are never caught? Most of these killers do not use handguns. I think the response to this tragedy is not surprising or unwarranted. But would an unbalanced individual have been less deranged and guilty if he had used Molotov Coctails which is easily done and much cheaper and easier to posess? I could take this to extreme and state that if the teachers had been armed at both Columbine and Virgia Tech, there would have been many fewer deaths. Or more probably, these planned massacres would not even have been attempted---at least with handguns. I feel that we are again experiencing a very natural human reaction---on both sides of the pond! Guns can of course be "used" to kill. But a human who truly desires to kill one, or a mass of persons, will not be stopped regardless of legislation. LOOK AT 911 ! And hundreds of "suicide bombers'. It is "minds" that need to be changed or helped, not the pasing of legislation. If all cookware suddenly became illegal to own---- would the world do much less cooking? Different cooking------but cooking still ! The idea of "guns as killers" is IMHO, not much different than "killing the messenger". Here in the colonies, not everyone trusts the police or government agencies to completely protect us. We have less "trust" in these persons now, than ever before. And I think rightfully so. There will be no government agency or Army that could carry off 6 million Jews to be slaughtered over here. One is not less dead as a result of the Killer being associated with government, than were he a crazed gunman. It is our freedoms that protects us---not a dependency on others, or legislation. A Japanese Admiral once said that it would be fruitless to invade the U.S., because you would have an armed civilian firing at you from behind every tree. He was right in 1941, and would be more right today. People are "killers", not knives, arrows, baseball bats or sling shots! These, along with guns, are merely implements / tools. My personal opinion only, but if a person wants to kill either one or one hundred people, he will find a reasonable way to do it wthout the use of the "tools" which I mentioned above. It has been an ages old reality, that if you want to subdue a person or a group, you should first try to disarm them. This is why Americans will not disarm, before ALL other guns are permanently disposed of. Maybe not even then ! I didn't mean to preach, but a massacre like this introduces a self made forum for "gun control". How does giving up protection, or placing your and your families protection in the hands of persons, who by nature, do not value your lives as much as you do, seem rational? It is, at best, a very bad gamble, which a great percentage of those in the U.S. are not willing to take. I suppose that I will now hear, from the "more cultured" on this forum, how preposterous and uncivilized are my arguments. But you must remember, that I have only recently emerged from my colonial Florida swampland, and will never realize the rationality that only the Old World cultured naturally inherit. Charlie Black

Ladies: I, obviously being more sincere, empathic and humanitarian than some of the preceeding posters, would like to state, since so many "spankers" are available, that I would like to lend my help in another manner. I would like to offer assistance in treating those potentially red and burning "spank marks". I offer to gently administer a soothing and loving relief to those areas in need, which might be inappropriate to mention on this particular thread.......since children may be present. I am a sincere good Samaritan ! A true "Keeper of the Faith," doing good work as I continue to "walk the earth". Charlie Black

Being a long time father and now a grandfather, I can agree that swear words on this forum should be discouraged. However, I feel that children do not have to be engaged on the intenet in order to hear much worse swearwords on TV or from an older brother or sister in another room. But I am willing to do my part with "words". Now, if I may refer to just the adult members; it should be well known by this group that swear words are not needed if one wants to insult or degrade another. This type of of abuser, if highly qualified, can far more deeply hurt an individual than a few mere swear words, that even the mentally incognizant seem able to master. Since we have again been drawn to the subject of "Culture", I have personally observed both in Europe and here in the Colonies, that the English are, by far, more adept at the false arrogance and abuse which they seem to feel is a "birthright" of their culture. They attempt to wittingly slash at people while keeping their hands clean. On this side of the pond, it is often looked at as not very witty and far more abusive than the mention of a swear word. I will none the less attempt not to swear....but if one merely picks up a modern dictionary, words much more repugnant than anything that I have heard on this forum will be found throughout. I am not particularly proud of it, but I couldn't count the number of times that I have told "my own" to "go and look for it in the dictionary." Why is the word "harlot" considered by some to be not swearing, while the word "whore" is generally considered improper? Is damning and going to hell, which in the Bible has a literal meaning, better than its "slang" modern meaning, which in reality, does not wish one to be either "truly damned" or "sent to hell"? I will attempt to abide by all of the forum rules, but my American cultural deficit makes it extremely difficult! Charlie Black P.S. I suppose that the majority of the "swearers" are "colonials" !

Hello John It is a rather smallish book which I read in one or two days when it first was published appx. four years ago. I apparently didn't find anything new, as I put it away and have never felt it important enough to use as a reference since. I would suppose that "new" material is determined by what one has previously read. Charlie Black

Terry & Dawn It is a pleasure for me to say "Thank You". I want you to know that I post only what "I" truly believe (except when joking). The posts to which both of you took exception were perhaps worded in a confusing manner. I meant nothing more than to state, besides the good that they did, they, as has everyone before them and since, made mistakes.....as they were human. The problem was that their mistakes, were made while surrounded by hostile enemies, who were long entrenched and supported by the "true power" behind the politics. Politics motivated by greed and power only. JFK's plans for the good of the nation and the world in general, were becoming an immoveable obstacle. Money and power, as usual had its way. Only in this case, power could not "coerce", SO, it removed the problem. My problem is that I truly feel that more of the good could have been accomplished, possibly forever, if the problems were approached in a manner that a "16 year control over the Presidency" could have insured entrenchment of certain standards. Too much was attempted in too short a time, that scared the pure hell out of "the old power base", and ended what could have been a 16 or possibly even a 24 year old campaign, rather than one of less than three years. I strongly have ALWAYS supported the "Kennedy Purpose"....I feel that the purpose could have been "doable". What was needed was a "four quarter game plan", not necessarily assured victory in the first quarter. The foe was big, powerful, very experienced and well entrenched. They could not be overwhelmed in the first quarter by anyone. And they still haven't been ! It has of course been, only in hindsight, conjectured by me, that more politics, patience and protocol, may have produced a victory had it been pursued over a longer time period. The Best and Brightest, may not win in the short term, over a very experienced and capable opponent. My criticism is of method....not purpose. Mistakes have been made by everyone...but not with the same penalty ! My problem was certainly not the "Kennedy Goal". It is that this goal "may" have been almost "completely" attainable with a longer term plan to achieve these objectives. The possibility of a 24 year occupancy of the White House as opposed to less than three. I questioned the wisdom of their methods. Not ever their "Goals" ! Charlie Black

To my thinking, there can never be true "closure" to the horror of the event. I would be satisfied however when History Books record that JFK was killed on 11/22/63, the result of a Coup d' Etat which was engineered by the principals at both the highest levels of of the U.S. government and its agencies. This coup was not only strongly encouraged, but truly demanded by those whose financial monopoly held the "true power" behind the transparently "token government". The power which drove this coup is now realized to forever have changed the path taken by the U.S. in both domestic and international matters. The United States now attempts to RE-EARN the respect it once held in a government of the PEOPLE, which had once taken those first steps to rationally bring accord to problems which arise between nations in an ever shrinking world. To me "The Admission of Conspiracy" will come closest to historical closure for me. AS far as "who dunnit" and "how done"....we actually have known for some time. For those of you who are not satisfied until you learn who paid what people to hide, in which places, and to fire an exact number of shots......I am convinced that you will forever be cursed with looking at faded pictures and trying to convince others that "shrubs" are "shooters" and where others were positioned. I frankly don't give a damn about people who are dead or octogenarians being brought "to justice". To my thinking, JUSTICE is the admission of what occurred, and that PREVENTATIVE STEPS have been taken to insure that this can never happen again ! I don't know the exact mechanics of the plot, but I surely for years have known "Who Did It and Why". This is why I have no cause for further actual research. The ONE FACTOR which should be blatantly obvious to anyone studying this case for even a brief time, is the self destruction of researchers by their individual feelings of independence, and their failure to concede minor points in their "Pet Theories", so that a united force can move forward with the agreement, that their purpose is only the ADMISSION that a Coup occured on 11/22/63 and that it is realized and that steps have been "entrenched", that will not allow it to happen again. IMHO, the very obvious lack of a "united front" is what has kept this case alive. That is why the Warren Report Buffoons laughingly point to us as "buffs" and "theorists", and continue to point to the fact that we are all so "loony" that we cannot agree with each other. Regarding this "they ain't wrong"....and without some sort of unification, I would wager if I had a chance of then being alive, that 43 years from now someone will again be asking..."If the Z film were altered, why did they show JFK's head apparently react to a frontal shot?" Our sights must be raised for any type of closure. Raised to demanding proof that IT WAS DONE.....not by who or why. We need to graduate to a higher level. I personally don't need to know the names of those who actually stabbed Julius Caesar, any more than I need the names of the soldiers who nailed Jesus Christ to the cross! We don't need the names because we truly know the "WHY". I think the time for research has passed and it is now time for "True Analysis" and ORGANIZATION ! Charlie Black

This may mean nothing, but last week I went to my local Barnes & Noble and "reserved" a copy. I was told they expect to receive it near the end of May. I hope they meant "this year" ! Charlie Black

Charles Drago I feel you are absolutely right on. I have been criticized constantly for continuing to repeat this Z film, is why this "investigation" has not been concluded. Charlie Black

All Forum Members Since Terry Mauro apparently remains incapable of controlling herself, as I have strongly suggested in some of my prior posts......I will take it upon myself to attempt to end this very nasty degradation of a well meaning forum. Though my views regarding Terry Mauro have not changed one iota from what I have previously posted, I wish to apoligize to all other Forum Members for my contribution to this dung heap. I should have been intelligent enough and gentlemanly enough to have long withdrawn from a thread which unmeaningly bred such strong hostility. I apparently must have somehow exceeded my original beliefs which were only that both Kennedy's were "mere mortals", and were as subject to error as the rest of us who are in that same classification. For those of you who I had impressed as a "Kennedy Basher", I truly apologize as I have never meant to be that. Hopefully, my plans to not respond to Terry's comments regarding me should help clear the atmosphere, and will certainly come at no sacrifice to me. Again...my apologies ! Charlie Black

Hello Pat I verbally expressed that I felt that both Jack and Robert Kennedy made, what I believe to be mistakes. I always thought that this was "free speech" ! An elementary school student can see that the references to me were personal affronts. One does not have to be a PHD to recognize this. Yet you and others, even the moderating committee, have taken the position that her normal responses, a part of which has frequently been that certain men should be "strung up by their balls" is "satisfactory behaviour on this forum. The rationale is apparently, that if one does not like the political position expressed by a complaint poster, the person so accused will never be in error. It will be reversed so that it appears as if the less popular individual has attacked the more popular. Does anyone really believe that it can remotely be conceived that this complaint was "moderated" ? This has been a political "SHAM" ! It appears that NO ONE has "objectively" read this entire thread as I requested. The MODERATORS closed the thread on which I issued a complaint. I take it that the reason given is that I did not register it in the proper foremat. What has happened here is an example of the way political matters are handled by our respective governments. That is why the JFK investigation ran into a brick wall ! Charlie Black Charlie Black

Terry Mauro has recently for some reason chosen to verbally attack me personally in several threads. Rather than debating any point which I may enter, she chooses to launch "hysterical tirades" toward me. Please refer to a current thread entitled "Kennedy Family Secrets". I feel that she is attempting to disallow me freedom of expression of my ideas in regard to both John and Robert Kennedy. She has attempted to for some unknown reason to publicly belittle me with comments that are even often not related to the subject. Her tirades are so hysterical at times that they do not sound like sane responses. I request this matter be investigated and that I am no longer allowed to be "personally attacked" by this person. Debate and disagreement is expected. Her comments far exceed any interpretatin of debate and disagreement. Charlie Black Charlie Black

Terry This is not meant to be name calling, but it is my personal belief that you are "QUITE INSANE" ! You feel that it is important to point out when "in your opinion" I have misused a word. I would not like to have my "words" changed by you. Had I wanted to say "ad nauseum" I would have done so. I hope that I have the fortitude to NEVER respond to your maniacal attacks against me again. Once again, and I think that it should be brought to the attention of those, in power on this forum....that I have absolutely and without reservation, the right to express my disagreement with decisions that effected world politics, of the actions of both John and Robert Kennedy while in office. Terry, in a most ignorant and hysterical manner, attempts to delve into my inner motivations to participate in what "she has termed as Kennedy Bashing". I have stated nothing more than I think that they both made some reckless decisions which both endangered world peace, and greatly disrupted internal political stability within the U.S. I feel that her attacks are so far "out of order" and directed personally at me....for reasons which she may not even know....that she should be called on to both make a formal apology on this forum, and in the future desist from personal attacks on my person. Her personal guardianship of the "Kennedy Honor", I feel, is well beyond the "norm" of mental stability. Instead of posting "disagreements" with my comments, she because most of these comments are quite reasonable, chooses to instead attack me. She constantly in other threads and posts has expressed that she would like to "hang up certain men by their balls". I don't feel that this is either acceptable forum behavior....or even social behavior within my social group. She has expressd that I seem like a female who has been suffering thru menopause. I take particular exception to this as mine has not yet begun ! I feel that this person needs to be tamed or seriously curtailed. I am asking for moderator participation ! Charlie Black

Fair point, Charlie, the problem lies with the selectivity of that scrutiny. Consider, for example, JFK's alleged infidelities. We're treated to endless rehashes of this topic, yet I'd be willing to bet a tidy sum that Allen Dulles betrayed his wife's trust on many more occasions than JFK. Yet what do we hear on that subject? Nothing. This is particularly odd given Dulles' legendary penchant for extra-marital sex. So why the silence on this issue? Is it only Presidents, not senior spooks, who are susceptible to blackmail? And if unfaithfulness to one's wife is held to be a capital offence, how many senior Agency people should have been put up against the wall and shot? Or members of this forum? Paul Hello Paul I agree "somewhat" with your comments. Regarding Allen Dulles, considering one of his affairs was with a lady, who may have been quite involved with conspiracy, I would particularly agree with you. But in Politics as in "football", it is the quarterback who gets both the glory and the blame. In Politics, it is the President who calls the plays and therefore gets the most press. When the President catches a cold....the entire world knows about it. Certainly not so with the CIA director. Charlie Black

Dawn Meredith As you and the entire forum know, your last post was a "non response" to anything that I had mentiond other than that regarding Ashton Gray. And if anyone cares to re-read J. Raymond Caroll's posts to me, they will further understand my criticism of both your and his position. If anything, your last post strengthens my previously posted positions regarding yourself and J. Raymond Carrol. They are immature ! Charlie Black

Dawn Meredith It seems that you began taking exception to everything that I post since I had somewhat of a running gun battle with your friend Ashton Gray. Although you certainly have the right to expess whatever you wish regarding your personal views, It seems ridiculous of accusing me of "Kennedy bashing" if I post anything other than flattery of the Kennedys. Although I greatly admired Jack Kennedy personally, that is not to say that I have admired a great deal of Kennedy family behavior neither before nor since the assassination.This lack of admiration also applies to his brother Robert, both before and after, and the attitude of the entire Kennedy family of "silence" since the assassination. I feel this has introduced an unnecessary stumbling block in the extensive investigation by researchers, and possibly has provided irreparable harm. It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny. There have been many Kennedy family members which have risen to prominence as a direct result of JFK's election to the Presidency, however there have been virtually none that have been willing to share with the nation, which has lifted them to this prominence, an iota of assistance, in an area that has greatly divided and changed this country. Please do not tell me of the terrible losses this family has endured....so has mine and many others. And please do not tell me that a family which has some very sordid events in its past, should be immune to criticism, because of the rise of one of its members to lofty political prominence. If you are not willing to accept, that regardless of the assistance which they volunteered to this nation, that they made some mistakes", is both ridiculous and childish. It is as prudent and necessary, to point out their shortcomings, possibly moreso than their acconplishments, when attempting to study the causes of their demise. I feel that the good that John Kennedy accomplished has often been credited to him on this and other forums and discussions. A discussion of possible mistakes, should not be considered "bashing" as it is nothing more than a discussion of history. If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis. I find your attacks and attempted belittlement to be immature to the point of nausea. Remember, if the kitchen gets too hot, you are not required to enter it ! Charlie Black

Hi Bernice You are absolutely correct and I agree that for the most part this is senseless. However, that so much of this case, even the Warren Report and the findings of the HSCA, are based "so heavily" on supposition and conjecture, along with the deliberate exclusion of certain very important pieces of evidence, it becomes difficult to discuss this case, even when attempting to be fair and honest, without entering those areas in which speculation and conjecture "actually dominate". When even faced with what could possibly be very critical evidence ie....was Oswald an U.S. intelligence asset?.....was he an FBI informant?... were there more than ONE Oswald, has the Zapruder film been altered?.......... We have no definitive answers, but a lot of speculation and conjecture. As I have said before, I could care less about the "sex lives" of any of the Kennedys....or of Marilyn Monroe ! My very admittedly speculative question was meant to actually delve into another area....tho we will not find an answer. "IF" their was reckless sexual behavior of John or Robert Kennedy which may have in some way have had even a remote impact on what was perceived to be National Security.....and IF this alledged behavior ( even falsely created conversational tapes ) came into the hands of JEH.....there could "speculatively" have been a number of "consequences" which followed, involving Marilyn. My point being, and this is not meant to be Kennedy bashing, nor is this meant to be a "moral judgement" of "anyone's" sexual behavior"....when an individual accepts the honor of being the Foremost Representative of the United States, he must ACCEPT also that that his "position" disallows him freedoms which he may once have had, or would like to have. "Everything has a price that must, in one way or another, be paid." If, whether true or not, some seemingly substantial evidence, reached the office of JEH....a major problem is born! Marilyn was known to have Mafia associated friends. The U.S. was said to be having a war on organized crime. It could be perceived, even if reports were falsified, that a Kennedy, being associated with "a friend" of organized crime displayed both "reckless and potentially harmful" behavior that was not in the best interest of the United States. I feel that it is documented that JFK dissolved a very friendly relationship with Frank Sinatra upon advisement by JEH of Frank's "possible" mob connections. "IF" there was a close relationship between Marilyn and either Kennedy, it would no doubt not have escaped JEH's over surveillance of the Kennedy's. If even a portion of these speculations are true, and I feel "personally" (no proof) that they are, a major problem "could have arisen" which effected Marilyn and her death. Once again, stating that Robert and John were "mortal men", regardless of the offices which they held, I hope that this is not "Kennedy bashing", but they could make human, mortal mistakes, which because of the "positions" which they accepted, could be concluded to "Not being in the best interest of the United States", and therefore considered "very reckless" behavior...from a security stand point. This is not meant to be a condemnation.....but reality ! This is how things work ! Charlie Black

Yes Charles Drago We at least are in agrement wirh the contents of your last post. I shall mark this on my calendar! Charlie Black

Terry It has become obvious to me, and I feel certain to others, that regardless of what is said about the Kennedy's.....if they are in any way depicted as behaving like many other human beings, and not on the list of those being considered for sainthood, you are likeley to enter into (a sometimes hysterical) lengthy defense of what you refer to as "Kennedy Bashing"! I feel that it is quite immature and irrational to to constantly express the opinion that they were any more faultless than most of the billions who have lived on this earth. You often sound, to me, like a 15 year old President of the "Elvis Fan Club". I do feel that the mainstay of my thread was and is, What, if any, secret information could have caused the Kennedy's concern. I am not personally concerned with the alledged amorous adventures of ANY two brothers in the 1960's, or of anyone in Hollywood either then or now. Rules regarding classified information apply to the President and Attorney General as much as, and probably moreso, than the apply to the rest of the population. There are so many things that most of us "don't know"....who knows what was actually in her taped secret conversations with the President and Attorney General. It may not have dealt with possibilities of Nuclear War, but more likely topics such as Mafiosi, who were well know, by their association with Marilyn, and possible government thoughts or plans regarding them. This does not reek of Nuclear War, but it is certainly Top Secret Judicial Dept. information, that should not be discussed with any citizen, much less friends or associates of anyone believed to be a member of organized crime. I think that my concerns are rational and valid. I do not feel that either Kennedy was particularly concerned by anything regarding their alledged sexual connections to an alcoholic and drug addicted actress who had just been "fired from her job" for reasons pertaining to these problems. When, in Hollywood, one is fired for drug or alcohol abuse, it is no doubt a major problem. Their apparently was much concern on the part of Bobby and JEH regarding something pertaining to Marilyn . This is Fact and this was the true topic of my thread. Unless I plan at some time to eulogize the Kennedy Family, which is unlikely, I don't intend to reply further to any of your "insider knowledge" of Kennedy behavior. I feel that your reactions involving this subject are highly irrational and therefore do not encourage the pursuit of truth.....which I feel that we are supposed to be seeking. Charlie Black

Hello Charles Sorry, but you in no way interpreted correctly the content of my message. Not only in politics, but in Education, Corporate Business, the Military or any highly structured large establishment, the same basics apply. I am not stating that any "honorable man" MUST abide by these basics and protocol. I am saying only that if he doesn't, he may become the hero of the masses, but for only a short period of time. Disenfranchisement is one of the lesser evils that can follow "temporary" independence. I am an anti-establishmentarian. I am a rebel. BUT I have been willing to "pay the price" to be so. My price was not as high as that paid by many....or I may have been much less heroic. I never said that Jack and Bobby "were asking for it". I am saying that Nothing is Free. In the end, the system will win: in London, Washinton or Las Vegas. I am also not implying that what they were fighting for was not right and honorable. But one should be smart enough "not to enter a gunfight armed only with a knife." One must know and understand that there are always "limitations"....placed on everyone and every thing. The higher the glory, the higher the price! Charlie Black

Hello Stephen I would first like to thank you for your support of my having the right to post whatever my personal beliefs are in this matter. I will further thank you for mentioning that you feel that my "mental stability" should not be attacked on this forum. However, since you are a moderator, how does one know if a person is expressing the opinion as a moderator, or whether one is merely entering the discussion as an individual? I know of nothing that has been established so that members might differentiate between the two, and I feel that there should be a procedure for such a differentiation. I really don't know if I, at the moment, am speaking to a person or an "entity". The reason that I mention this is that in your most recent post on this thread, you stated something that I found confusing. That point, is that it is your personal opinion that you did not agree with my ideas. I certainly take no offence to this, as you certainly are in the majority, and I have grown quite accustomed to my position. However I think, although I am not certain due to the very recent addition of this moderating element, that as a "moderator", one is not allowed to express their "personal views" regarding the topic......which you of course did. So my question is a simple one. Was your last post in this thread, meant to be the posting of a "moderator" or a "member" ? No harm done, but I feel that this matter should be clarified. CharlieBlack

Hello Charles I certainly wont argue the summation which you mentioned of "some" of the forces aligned against him....but I still strongly question ( even out of his feeling of some "needed security"), the complete absence of protocol involved in Robert's "introduction" into some of these areas. This, IMHO, was a bad move, but Robert's agressiveness in areas where it is acknowledged that he didn't belong, was politically, professionally, and militarially insulting, to some very political, professional and military individuals. This is where I feel that major mistakes were made that at least "hastened" JFK's demise. I feel that there was becoming a quick history of what appeared to be, the administrations total disdain of protocol, and the forced establishment of JFK's personal wishes. Whether JFK's wishes or will, were in the overall best interests of the United States, is something that others much brighter than me, should judge. Democracies are by their very nature much slower to react and much less efficient in some areas than are dictatorships. However, if we are to have democracy, some of these "slow rules and protocols" cannot at times be set aside by the chief executive or anyone else. Charlie Black Charlie Black

One of the rasons I really like this forum is that it enables me to contact serious researchers like Duke Lane, Steve Thomas, James Richards, Robin Unger, and others who are serious about solving the JFK assassination. Another reason I like this forum is because it provides a forum for complete idiots like Charlie Black. Apparently Charlie is retired and has nothing better to do than insult real people, like RFK, who is dead and cannot defend himself. Bravo, Charlie. We all love the bullxxxx you are spreading. I'm sure you are a better man than RFK, and I'm sure you are qualified to criticize his performance as Attorney General. (NOT!) J. Raymond That was a deplorable post and you should be advised by the moderators of it. When a forum member cannot state that he personally feels RFK was a poor choice for any high post in government, and then is lambasted and cursed at for that belief, I find it unbelievable. I did not state that I was a better man than RFK, but in many ways I feel that I am, and I certainly have enough knowledge to have a pretty well educated opinion on the subject ! Your statement that I was opinionating on "poor dead people" who cannot defend themselves, is as childish a statement as those which I heard RFK make to both Sam Giancanna and Jimmy Hoffa. You would be well advised to learn a little more about me before accusing me of cowardice or having a lack of Patriotism. I fought for the right to freely express myself and I intend to continue to do so. There are a few on this planet still that do not have to buy a book or email a person to acquire information of what occured during the JFK period and the hell that followed. There are a few of us "poor stupids" that lived what you read about. Tell me J. Raymond, do people who speak ill of persons such as Adolph Hitler and cohorts not have that right because those good fellows are dead and cannot defend themselves? And you are attempting to engage me from the confines of your home and the safety and relative anonymity of this forum by calling me a coward? You would be wise to stick to your schoolyard. You have not earned the right to call me a coward or attempt to belittle me. I will say it again....I (ME) do not feel that RFK served himself, his President, and his Countrymen in a manner that should be expected of a person holding his position. I feel that his attempted participation in areas where he "obviously", according to protocol, should not have been participating, did much to further antagonism toward his President and probably aided in the demise of JFK. I do not need a lecture on the "good" which may have evolved had JFK remained President. He did not remain President. A full fledged coup resulted, at least in part because of the inability of the administration to see beyond its nose, and to realize that it could neither power thru nor flank the obstacles which they faced with the very limited power and support which they held. A few less harsh words and considerably more diplomacy, along with a little more political experience, may have taken the President down a different path toward the goals which he hoped to achieve. In retrospect, I feel that JFK committed suicide while being cheered on by the ever faithful but very limited Bobby ! Do members of the forum, other than J. Raymond feel that I cannot post my beliefs that the Kennedy's were not Gods? Is it sacrilege ? Charlie Black

Must have changed his mind. Yep Mike. But thanks for not calling me a xxxx. Changing mind is OK ! Charlie Black

TERRY MAURO I don't feel that I would be wrong in assuming that you were one of the very few "dullards" that did not realize that my mention of drugs was a somewhat joking response to Charles Drago's (I assume) joking recommendation that I change my medications. I feel that both my post and his were not meant to be taken seriously by the average particpant on this forum. Tho it is really none of you business, I take no drugs, prescription or otherwise, that is stronger than aspirin. HOWEVER, if you are often propelled into maniacal, hysterical ramblings, of the type which you just posted, I believe that most would feel that you are indeed in need of analytical or chemical assistance. As I was reading your post, I seriously felt that you had indeed slipped over the edge. AS I more firmly than ever believe in those ideas that I posted relating to RFK's lack of tact, manners and composure, I feel that I stated them clearly enough the first time. Do you really "NOT BELIEVE" that Robert did not do much to antagonize Edgar, which at the time was not in the best interest of Jack? Where the hell have you been? Between Jack and Robert, they alienated much support which they could have used. The proper useage of Politics is meant to gather support for one's endeavors, not to alienate persons and positions which you purposely and very obviously bypass or refuse to recognize. A great part of this alienation, resulted often from the Kennedy refusal to follow protocol. Those in "true power" do not take lightly if they feel that their desires are being purposely bypassed. Once again I will state that I mean to retract nothing that I have expressed regarding Robert Kennedy causing turmoil within the administration and without. I feel that he appeard to take pleasure in re aggravating old wounds rather than attempting to rehabilitate them. Frankly, and this is only a personal observation, I feel that Robert and JEH were quite similar in their practices. If you wish to "worship" the Kennedy's, you perhaps should erect a memorial. But donning blinders does not make any of the Kennedy's perfect or near perfect. I personally liked JFK very much and the method of his demise has burdened me to the extent, that not one day in the last 35 years, have I not devoted much thought toward the horror and injustice of his murder by those stalwarts of our society. I had and remain to have very little respect for Robert Kennedy, both before and during his ascendancy to the postion of Attorney General. I maintain that there is little that he did during those years that did not "hasten" his brothers death. If what I have just said leads you to believe that I am insane, you are really going to flip when you hear of my thoughts of Joe Sr, Ted and even Joseph Jr. And for that matter Rose ! I belong to this forum out of deep respect for John Kennedy. I am not particularly fond of the rest of the Kennedy Clan, and I feel that this "family behavior", for whatever contrived reason, has greatly aided in the cover up of John's murder. Terry, I suppose that you have surmised that I care very little of your diagnosis of my mental instability ! As a matter of fact, I should take it as a compliment, considering what I feel regarding your assessments in general. Charlie Black

Since I cannot personally prove that these oft talked about relationships in fact occurred, I am one of those who believe that in most cases, where there is smoke, there is, or at least was, a fire. I am not introducing this to re-discuss exclusively Marilyn's death. I have a problem, and a very serious one I feel. I am not concerned with or wish to pass judgement on the "sexual" behavior of these three persons. My question involves the possible extremely reckless and dangerous (concerning matters of National Security) possible "mental" behavior of the President and Attorney General of the United States. There has been so much written regarding Marilyn's "secret diary", and taped bedroom conversations of these three, along with many other "allegations" regarding these alledged relationships that a question arises that I feel that any teenager would ask. The World knew of these alledged relationships, and Marilyn's mere exposure of this would hardly be earth shattering. This exposure would in no way be a motive for which to risk detection of murder. My question relates to the mental state of a U.S. President and Attorney General to have confided "anything" of a confidential nature to this mentally unstable woman. Her mental instability and drug usage was certainly known to nearly the entire world. They could not have needed to further IMPRESS this lady. They certainly were not stupid enough, to under normal conditions, have discussed publicly, in bed or at parties, issues of National Security. Considering my immediately prior statement, were they suffering from something that may have altered their minds.....this not the rational behavior of a President and Attorney General, or for that matter, anyone entrusted with National Security issues. Or is there something factual in reports of White House drug usage ? Or was Marilyn simply making up that she was going to expose "secrets" and had in fact a "secret diary" or possibly tape recordings. Perhaps this drug addict did die from an accidental overdose.....but there appear to be some weird happenings at around the "time of her death". This matter could definitely relate to some opinions of important persons, regarding JFK & Bobby's "potential recklessness", which could be endangering the security of the nation. I expect that I will again be assailed as a Kennedy Basher by some. But all that I want is truth that sounds reasonable and logical to me. Again ! My purpose is neither to praise or belittle the Kennedy's. But I assert that it is extremely naive to believe Jack and Robert not participating in some very reckless behavior on a number of proven occasions. Since most of us have all read the same materials, I suppose that "opinion" is the most that anyone could render. There are many things that smell very bad in this "Marilyn Thing". Charlie Black