Charles Black Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 I do not mean this as a criticism of anyone's methods or viewpoints, but rather a very quick summation of why "I personally feel" that we perhaps should question some of our four decades old "set in stone" approaches. I have been attempting to determine within my own mind the answers to what I have long felt to be some "strange questions". I am questioneing "the WHY" of, after nearly four and one half decades, thousands of books, papers and studies, tens of millions of words of various forum discussions, that none of us can, with certainty, answer some of the most basic of questions. These are questions that have been asked of and by some of the brightest minds on the planet? During this extended period of time, NO ONE, can prove to us the number of, or the location of of shooters ! Now I can think of no more "basic starting point" than that. This non-answer, IMO, is indicative of the progress which has TRULY been advanced! You and I must all realize that there is no "proof" that neither JFK nor JBC were struck by missiles fired from TSBD (any floor or any window), the Dal Tex bldg., County Records building, any window or rooftop facing the Plaza, any sewer drain, up any knoll or behind any wall or fence ! Yet this is where our study has been focused and most likely, the direction in which it has been brillantly led. I feel that an eye opener for many might be a general look at the percentage of murders, self defense killings, police killings and particularly political assassinations that have ever been successfully conducted with a high or medium powered military rifle ! Amazing isn't it ! Perhaps we may then want to look at the manner in which most "successful killers" go about their work. What weapons do they use? From what distance do they kill ? How often are they unsuccessful? How do many of them remain forever "at large" ? We hear that it was predicted that JFK would be killed from a tall building with a high power rifle. Who were "they" that were predicting this ? Why was this M.O. being "SET UP" many months before the murder ? Do you possibly feel that this "pre idea" was the beginning of a "set up"? A set up that did not include a high power rifle shot from a tall building? Do we ever forget that we are probably dealing with the smartest "masters of deception" that have ever walked this earth ? Do you really believe the KGB, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI and other highly sophisticated intelligence and investigatory agencies are not aware of every detail regarding this Coup d' Etat ? Since I don't feel that most of you expect "the evidence to change"......have you perhaps thought that our thinking, perceptions and thought processes should? I am advancing what I feel should be a rational and natural progression. There can only be "ONE" reality. One cannot come to a correct solution to a problem which is entirely based on false evidence input. We have been led to believe that through film, we have WITNESSED the "FACTS" of the assassination. There is some quite conclusive evidence (available readily to all) that we "HAVE NOT SEEN A TRUE DEPICTION OF JFK'S MURDER ! We nor can anyone see the "truth" when looking at a quite distorted image. The Z film is "THE LIE" responsible for the non solution, or absence of true progress, "toward closure" of this case. The following few sentences have been proposed by myself on many previous ocassions, but at this point, I MUST quickly again do so. The assassination involved, in addition to some strategically placed rifles and explosions, some of which were detonated only to "confuse".....the use of several handguns...some small caliber...all sound supressed using the finest supression technology....concealed in cameras and / or womens purses, newspapers, folded raincoats, hats, caps, Stetsons or dozens of other possible places of concealment, by Elm Street "spectators". Some of this was captured perhaps on the original Z film. It was these captured images that initiated the most immediate Z film manipulation....probably thru frame excision.... More elaborate techniques were later applied. I am not out seeking vote or support! I am merely attempting to remove the long entrenched cart of planted evidence, from the mire in which it was placed, and had been planned to be placed.....well before the first shot was ever fired. Thank you for your indulgence ! I suppose that many of you, will consider me even "more mad and less intelligent" than you did previously. I have a very strong conviction in the truth or very near truth, of everything stated in this post! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 15, 2007 Author Share Posted June 15, 2007 I must begin by apologizing to the members of this forum, for being such a boor as to attempt to resurrect a personal thread. I am reluctantly doing this, not to draw attention to a "pet theory", as may be suggested, but an honest effort to induce some independent thought to the, IMO, primary area in which this research has been long and very deeply mired! I am surprised, as I expected one of several types of response, any of which I would have considered as reasonable. I can understand someone thinking that I am either mad or merely seeking attention. Mad I might be ! What I have proposed, in my opinion is neither documentable nor undocumentable. Some might say that "the" sound analysis indicated probable shots from both the Knoll and TSBD areas. This is not averse in any way to what I propose. Others will say, if not giving deeper thought to the capabilities of both the most advanced sound supression and weapons concealing techniques, only available to the "select", that this theory seems too "James Bondish" ! There are some who will espouse, without consultation with those who have been involved, or have consulted with those involved in "Black Ops", that these spectator shooters would have been easily detectable. If one makes even a cursory investigation, one will find that with the misdirection gunshots, other explosions, firecrackers?, motorcycle, vehicle, and crowd noise, that this set up, would suggest the easiest mingling with the crowd and subsequent escape of participants, than any of the other "theoretical" locations and possible escape probabilities of shooters. As I have stated emphatically, if you use as "your old dependable primary tool", the extant Z film, as have most in the past....you will not find a great deal except for...unreasonable numbers of possible shots....some very improbable wound entry angles....only a "possibility of" four separate missile strikes to JFK and almost no indication of a possible three separate strikes to JBC...a frontal throat shot from a "strange" angle...a missile caused hole in the windshield.....a missile dented chrome bar... a stated "flurry of shots"....no explanation for possible upper angled throat and back wounds to JFK (don't forget the back wound was FINGERED in some direction).....and evidence of an absolutely absurd amount of damage done by three or even four shots. Since I have so strongly believed in what I have proposed, for such an extraordinary length of time, I would welcome those responses which will point out to me the irrationality of my thoughts, so that I might be able to "move forward". If however, you do not think them irrational, perhaps my proposed "Change of Investigatory Direction" should be strongly considered. I will thank your indulgence ! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry J.Dean Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I must begin by apologizing to the members of this forum, for being such a boor as to attempt to resurrect a personal thread. I am reluctantly doing this, not to draw attention to a "pet theory", as may be suggested, but an honest effort to induce some independent thought to the, IMO, primary area in which this research has been long and very deeply mired!I am surprised, as I expected one of several types of response, any of which I would have considered as reasonable. I can understand someone thinking that I am either mad or merely seeking attention. Mad I might be ! What I have proposed, in my opinion is neither documentable nor undocumentable. Some might say that "the" sound analysis indicated probable shots from both the Knoll and TSBD areas. This is not averse in any way to what I propose. Others will say, if not giving deeper thought to the capabilities of both the most advanced sound supression and weapons concealing techniques, only available to the "select", that this theory seems too "James Bondish" ! There are some who will espouse, without consultation with those who have been involved, or have consulted with those involved in "Black Ops", that these spectator shooters would have been easily detectable. If one makes even a cursory investigation, one will find that with the misdirection gunshots, other explosions, firecrackers?, motorcycle, vehicle, and crowd noise, that this set up, would suggest the easiest mingling with the crowd and subsequent escape of participants, than any of the other "theoretical" locations and possible escape probabilities of shooters. As I have stated emphatically, if you use as "your old dependable primary tool", the extant Z film, as have most in the past....you will not find a great deal except for...unreasonable numbers of possible shots....some very improbable wound entry angles....only a "possibility of" four separate missile strikes to JFK and almost no indication of a possible three separate strikes to JBC...a frontal throat shot from a "strange" angle...a missile caused hole in the windshield.....a missile dented chrome bar... a stated "flurry of shots"....no explanation for possible upper angled throat and back wounds to JFK (don't forget the back wound was FINGERED in some direction).....and evidence of an absolutely absurd amount of damage done by three or even four shots. Since I have so strongly believed in what I have proposed, for such an extraordinary length of time, I would welcome those responses which will point out to me the irrationality of my thoughts, so that I might be able to "move forward". If however, you do not think them irrational, perhaps my proposed "Change of Investigatory Direction" should be strongly considered. I will thank your indulgence ! Charles Black Charles Black Good thinking Charles. H.J.Dean hjay1212@wmconnect.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 16, 2007 Author Share Posted June 16, 2007 Thank you Harry I would also be thaking you had you responded by telling me that "I was "from another Planet"! Since I feel so strongly about this issue, I cannot and will not let it "die a quiet and obscure death" caused by Obvious Neglect"! I am both boorsh and persistent enough with faith in my "speculation", that I am willing to weekly enter a "New Thread" on this subject for the next 100 years! If it is not time for "new ideas", I would like someone to step up and state it! If I am obviously and ridiculously wrong....I wish for someone, "or preferably many", to explain to me my errors. I feel that the lack of response is a result of the potential "credibility" of my argument.....as there are many here, who have not hesitated in the past, to very strongly infer that I am insane, or "just plain stupid"! At any rate, thanks again Harry ! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 17, 2007 Author Share Posted June 17, 2007 As I warned...I have not disappeared ! I think that ANY casual reader of this thread would begin to believe the "lack of response" indicative that many have considered my "speculation" as quite rational ! Is it a "fear of the new" ? Obstinance and refusal to reconsider the possibility of for 43 years having been misled ? Is it so "irrational" that it is unworthy of comment? Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 I feel that I must be "blessed with the patience of Job", as I calmly await ! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 still ain't gonna kwit til I have some rashunal inputting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 still ain't gonna kwit til I have some rashunal inputting 'k rashnul you wants, rashnul you gets, - The Harleys had been going slow for quite some time and the engines were hot. This means more backfiring from them. - There are sound suppression techniques that are very simple and old (100 years or so), developed by Finnish poachers: the 'cat's sneeze'. It's not accurate over great distances, but can be used in sawn off rifles and in handguns. loaded, prepared, properly the name 'cat's sneeze' is apt as to the sound it makes. The pattern it leaves on a 'five shot' has about a two in three chance of producing the shape of the back wound as the bullet is short and stubby and has a tendency to tumble. It can be loaded not to penetrate through and cause collateral damage. A person well trained in its use could shoot accurately in a noisy crowd and not be noticed. It has been used in assassinations, primarily in the northern eastern scandinavian russian region. For a long time it was not widely known ouside this region. (tha area Oswald and others passed through, including Nazis and White Russians who resettled to the US) - The simple WWII flash suppressors are not new news. No James Bond's needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share Posted June 25, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now