Jump to content
The Education Forum

Where have all the SBT/WCR supporters gone?


Recommended Posts

A JFK researcher from a USNET group has put together a group of questions ANY WCR/evidence familiar Lone Nutter SHOULD be able to answer. It's amazing, card carrying Lone Nutter's have refused to come to terms with these SIMPLE questions.

note: I asked permission to repost [in its entirety] the below to other forum dealing with JFK assassination related matters, which was granted - I "x'ed" out names and screen names.

DHealy

***********************

<quote on>

LNT'ers rarely know the evidence as well as CT'ers, since LNT'ers don't even

believe that the eyewitnesses knew what they were talking about... so they often

don't even bother to study the evidence in this cas. XXXXXXX has implied that he

knows the evidence... let's see if he does...

(Of course, XXXXXXXX, like many of these trolls, has disappeared... let's see if

"XXXXXXXXXXX" can take a stab at any of this... XXX XXXXXX, who *originally* got

these questions, has been running ever since.)

Just for the fun of it, these questions should be easy to answer for someone who

both knows the evidence, and can support the WCR, refuting us poor CT'ers:

Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidently

would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or

Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still

denied by most LNT'ers today?

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse

their theory?

Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the

statements they wanted?

What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the

night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the

autopsy?

How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively

demonstrated with CAT scans?

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the

prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were

clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the

govenment had control of them...

Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they

actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?

Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed

Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid

reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you

provide it?

Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?

CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned

by LHO?

Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government

investigators?

Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own

collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the

HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical

testimony... why??

Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?

Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and

"photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant

Z-film?

How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers

who designed the camera assert must happen?

Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we

can't see it in the Z-film?

Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the

large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?

These questions should keep an *honest* person busy for quite some time... a

dishonest xxxxx, on the other hand...

<quote off>

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I feel that except for a select few, the honor of the virginity of the Z film is no longer

protected and defended with the vigor which it once was. The argument that the "virginity" of this film strip stands alone, although it is world known that it resides in a brothel of tainted, misrepresented,

mishandled and "soiled" evidence, which was in most instances handled only by the U.S. government and its agencies is, I at least feel, beyond absurdity!

This group of staunch Z film defenders have tried to lure us into their fold, with what I feel are three of the meekest arguments in this entire case.

As far as I have been able to determine, these three arguments are:

1) It was physically impossible for anyone or any braintrust to have manipulated this 8 mm film strip in 1963.

2) It could not be altered because this would have required the alteration of all of the other film taken in Dealey Plaza on that afternoon.

3) If it were truly altered, why would "anyone in their right mind" not remove the JFK "headsnap", which would indicate to most viewers, a shot from the forward right (thus implicating another shooter) ?

Before going any deeper, I would like to express why a small portion of the film was "crudely" and hastily altered. I am referring only to the initial alteration, possibly by frame excision, of those frames immediately following Z frame 312. The "original" film captured absolute evidence of conspiracy and more than one shooter. This original film was viewed by Dan Rather during the evening of the assassination. Although many believe that Dan's testimony was a lie when he stated that JFK fell into Jackies lap.....this is what was reported by Jackie, secret service follow up witnesses, and the preponderance of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses. They all (on the afternoon of 11/22/63, before some of their testimony was coerced and later changed) stated that The President "fell" into Jackies lap.

There was NO reported "headsnap". There was no violent upward and backward reaction reported. It did not occur. No bullet, short of an artillery piece, carries this momentum.

Well then, why is it on the film?

My "theory" is that during the initial viewing, what was shown was JFK falling into Jackies lap.

This is what occurred and this is what was reported by all on the aftrnoon of 11/22/63. However there was somene viewing this film saw something that others missed ! Something that the conspirators absolutely could not allow to remain in the film as it indicated definitely at least a "second" shooter.

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

The general public has become aclimated to the Hollywood versions of gunfights in which people who have been shot are often projected, sometimes even airborne, backwards.

The truth of bullet momentum and impact is that the force that the bullet exerts on the target is no greater than the mometum of the recoil. I, as well as some of you, have fired a similar MC rifle and realize that it doesn't have a forceful "kick".

"ANYONE" with a knowlege of ballistics will verify this point. An immediate referal regarding bullet momentum and impact, can probably be most easily found in Dr. David Mantik's contributions in the books "Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". This should answer question #3. The conspirators did not want this unnatural movement depicted.....it was the resulting false reactions which resulted, I feel, from the frame excision.

I feel that the answer to question number 2 is very easily explained. In the very short timespan which encompassed this excision, there were very few other shutters being snapped. There WAS NOT very much "other" film evidence which required manipulation.

Do any of you believe that there is instruction in any military or intelligence manual, that states in the event of a Presidential assassination, that the immediate response is to confiscate film and cameras ? Don't worry about returning the gunfire or searching for assassins or weapons.....the important thing is to "seize" photographic equipment.

This was the ONLY reaction by authorities.

WHY ?

Now for question number one. You have been asked to believe, and some of you do believe, that there was not the brainpower within the capabilities of the United States and its intelligence agencies, and the billions of dollars which were available to it,

to have altered a strip of 8mm Kodacolor film.

We have technological capabilities that can send and return men from moon exploration. Gathered soil samples from the planet Mars. The ability to clone animals and human parts.

But it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter a strip of 8mm film !

This film, is in my very serious opinion, "THE" stumbling block in this investigation. Without the false information produced by this other piece of altered evidence, the entire case changes. Faulty premises are of course followed by faulty conclusions.

We need to wake up !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I feel that except for a select few, the honor of the virginity of the Z film is no longer

protected and defended with the vigor which it once was. The argument that the "virginity" of this film strip stands alone, although it is world known that it resides in a brothel of tainted, misrepresented,

mishandled and "soiled" evidence, which was in most instances handled only by the U.S. government and its agencies is, I at least feel, beyond absurdity!

This group of staunch Z film defenders have tried to lure us into their fold, with what I feel are three of the meekest arguments in this entire case.

As far as I have been able to determine, these three arguments are:

1) It was physically impossible for anyone or any braintrust to have manipulated this 8 mm film strip in 1963.

2) It could not be altered because this would have required the alteration of all of the other film taken in Dealey Plaza on that afternoon.

3) If it were truly altered, why would "anyone in their right mind" not remove the JFK "headsnap", which would indicate to most viewers, a shot from the forward right (thus implicating another shooter) ?

Before going any deeper, I would like to express why a small portion of the film was "crudely" and hastily altered. I am referring only to the initial alteration, possibly by frame excision, of those frames immediately following Z frame 312. The "original" film captured absolute evidence of conspiracy and more than one shooter. This original film was viewed by Dan Rather during the evening of the assassination. Although many believe that Dan's testimony was a lie when he stated that JFK fell into Jackies lap.....this is what was reported by Jackie, secret service follow up witnesses, and the preponderance of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses. They all (on the afternoon of 11/22/63, before some of their testimony was coerced and later changed) stated that The President "fell" into Jackies lap.

There was NO reported "headsnap". There was no violent upward and backward reaction reported. It did not occur. No bullet, short of an artillery piece, carries this momentum.

Well then, why is it on the film?

My "theory" is that during the initial viewing, what was shown was JFK falling into Jackies lap.

This is what occurred and this is what was reported by all on the aftrnoon of 11/22/63. However there was somene viewing this film saw something that others missed ! Something that the conspirators absolutely could not allow to remain in the film as it indicated definitely at least a "second" shooter.

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

The general public has become aclimated to the Hollywood versions of gunfights in which people who have been shot are often projected, sometimes even airborne, backwards.

The truth of bullet momentum and impact is that the force that the bullet exerts on the target is no greater than the mometum of the recoil. I, as well as some of you, have fired a similar MC rifle and realize that it doesn't have a forceful "kick".

"ANYONE" with a knowlege of ballistics will verify this point. An immediate referal regarding bullet momentum and impact, can probably be most easily found in Dr. David Mantik's contributions in the books "Assassination Science" and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". This should answer question #3. The conspirators did not want this unnatural movement depicted.....it was the resulting false reactions which resulted, I feel, from the frame excision.

I feel that the answer to question number 2 is very easily explained. In the very short timespan which encompassed this excision, there were very few other shutters being snapped. There WAS NOT very much "other" film evidence which required manipulation.

Do any of you believe that there is instruction in any military or intelligence manual, that states in the event of a Presidential assassination, that the immediate response is to confiscate film and cameras ? Don't worry about returning the gunfire or searching for assassins or weapons.....the important thing is to "seize" photographic equipment.

This was the ONLY reaction by authorities.

WHY ?

Now for question number one. You have been asked to believe, and some of you do believe, that there was not the brainpower within the capabilities of the United States and its intelligence agencies, and the billions of dollars which were available to it,

to have altered a strip of 8mm Kodacolor film.

We have technological capabilities that can send and return men from moon exploration. Gathered soil samples from the planet Mars. The ability to clone animals and human parts.

But it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter a strip of 8mm film !

This film, is in my very serious opinion, "THE" stumbling block in this investigation. Without the false information produced by this other piece of altered evidence, the entire case changes. Faulty premises are of course followed by faulty conclusions.

We need to wake up !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Be prepared for the tired old Lone Nutter arguments, Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions???

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while.

I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you!

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions???

Bill Miller

no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

You know quite well that there is no "expert" testimony from a world class ballistician that states that JFK's violent movements following Z312

are at all natural. Very much evidence to the contrary.

I do not claim photographic expertise personally, but I am certain that it is widely acknowleged by many members of this forum, that much evidence exists which strongly supports alteration, excision and manipulation.

I stand firmly behind everything hat I stated in my post.

Why do you sound surprised that my post proposed a "theory" ?

For the past 43 years most of what I have read and studied regarding this case is a theory. If we were working with absolute facts, we would not still be engaging in this.

"The Warren Commission Report" is one of the poorest theories available. It has to be theory as it certainly is not based on fact !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

of course the Craigster knows; you, I and a few others around here were NOT required to post a image... as John Simkin has alluded in the past -- It is required of newer members though. Guess Craig forgot about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture...

In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker.

WHy am I eager to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture...

In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker.

WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while.

I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you!

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions???

Bill Miller

no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please....

Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again?

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture...

In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker.

WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter?

Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie

I quite agree. Thank you, CB. The facts that the order in which some frames should have appeared were reversed in Life magazine, that the film was in the hands of the CIA's photo shop (both according to David Lifton's "Best Evidence") and, especially, that we didn't get to view any version of the film in motion until Geraldo got it on TV in 1975, for God's sake, ought to have been instructive even to the most ardent Cool-Aid consumer. The posting was well put.

JG

Edited by John Gillespie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while.

I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you!

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions???

Bill Miller

no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please....

Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again?

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture...

In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker.

WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter?

Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we?

dgh: we understand your penchant for avoiding questions regarding JFK's assassination, beyond your scope.... you're hereby relegated to lurker status, where you belong.....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...