WHY is headwound Un-EXPLAINED ?

[Charles Black]

You must know what is coming.....especially from me!

We have been engaged in a very long thread in which there have been debates, expressions, arguments, semi name calling and insults. However we end it, I feel that we are no more aware of anything, but what have been our individual pre-conceived "SPECULATIONS".

I maintain, as I always have, that as long as the extant Zapruder film, is considered by some to be "factual"......there can never be a true factual explanation or determination.

You are viewing an experience that "ALL" eyewitnesses who commented on the afternoon of 11/22/63, claim did not occcur !

I too can often question some eyewitness testimony.

I cannot question what dozens of persons reported separately and immediately after the assassination.

These testimonies which support each of the others. "Everyone", reporting the "exact and identical visual", CANNOT have been wrong. One or two identical eyewitness testimonies might be questioned....but not DOZENS of testimonies which ALL correspond !

You cannot explain the head wound for a very simple reason. Your determination is being made on a false basic premise. The truth which is recognized by a great many who do not have their heads buried in the sand, is that the government / conspirators have presented an unexplainable scenario.....yet you are trying to make sense of a nonsensical situation. It didn't occur as SEEN on Zapruder.

Any well acknowledged ballistician will be happy to tell you that what is referred to as "the headsnap", and what was actually a very fast and violent "upward", backward, and to the left, movement of the entire upper body, is not indicative of a gunshot wound or wounds to the head or torso...... short of an artillery round. The President is moved so violently that he bounces off of the back seat cushion. This film should be studied in "real time".

No one can explain this movement. It cannot be explained...... because it did not occur !

The Zapruder film is and has been the conspirators ace in the hole because it was meant to cause controversy. Such controversy that seemingly knowledgeable people ask..."if the film was altered, why would they have left in a movement that would make it appear as if JFK was shot from the front. The answer, I will once again state. There had to be immediate "frame excision" because there was something captured in those excised frames, that was far more incriminating and damning to the plotters than what they felt could be passed off, to "most of the public", as an abnormal gunshot reaction....ie "jet effect" etc. etc. !

That most vivid and unreal image of JFK being slammed backward was not of course a pre planned goal. It was an error that resulted by the excision

of the "incriminating" frames. They thought this image to be the lesser of two evils....and more easily explained. It was an "undesirable outcome" !

What could be "more incriminating"? Perhaps an image of a shooter or a shot. More than one gunman!

CONSPIRACY !

Most have been brainwashed to believe the only explanation put forward in defence of Zapruder film virginity..... that it would have been "impossible" for some of the most brilliant minds in the world,

to solve a mechanical problem. The most brilliant people with the most advanced equipment, and extremely dedicated. They could not solve the mechanical problem of altering Kodacolor II film.

We can travel to and retrieve samples from Mars....

But We Cannot Alter A Strip of Film !

I am proud to not claim to believe such a ridiculous statement, regardless of how many times Bill Miller and others tell me that I cannot understand because I am too unlearned.

Many of you have fallen for, and I can understand somewhat why, the possibly greatest hoax ever put over on an "unexpecting" and naive public.

As long as the Z film is accepted as fact..NO PROGRESS will be made toward true closure of this seeming enigma.

There is no sense in me further repeating what I have been saying for years.

I sincerely wish that I were one of you "True Believers" !

Charlie Black

Edited December 27, 2006 by Charles Black

[Jack White]

You must know what is coming.....especially from me!

We have been engaged in a very long thread in which there have been debates, expressions, arguments, semi name calling and insults. However we end it, I feel that we are no more aware of anything, but what have been our individual pre-conceived "SPECULATIONS".

I maintain, as I always have, that as long as the extant Zapruder film, is considered by some to be "factual"......there can never be a true factual explanation or determination.

You are viewing an experience that "ALL" eyewitnesses who commented on the afternoon of 11/22/63, claim did not occcur !

I too can often question some eyewitness testimony.

I cannot question what dozens of persons reported separately and immediately after the assassination.

These testimonies which support each of the others. "Everyone", reporting the "exact and identical visual", CANNOT have been wrong. One or two identical eyewitness testimonies might be questioned....but not DOZENS of testimonies which ALL correspond !

You cannot explain the head wound for a very simple reason. Your determination is being made on a false basic premise. The truth which is recognized by a great many who do not have their heads buried in the sand, is that the government / conspirators have presented an unexplainable scenario.....yet you are trying to make sense of a nonsensical situation. It didn't occur as SEEN on Zapruder.

Any well acknowledged ballistician will be happy to tell you that what is referred to as "the headsnap", and what was actually a very fast and violent "upward", backward, and to the left, movement of the entire upper body, is not indicative of a gunshot wound or wounds to the head or torso...... short of an artillery round. The President is moved so violently that he bounces off of the back seat cushion. This film should be studied in "real time".

No one can explain this movement. It cannot be explained...... because it did not occur !

The Zapruder film is and has been the conspirators ace in the hole because it was meant to cause controversy. Such controversy that seemingly knowledgeable people ask..."if the film was altered, why would they have left in a movement that would make it appear as if JFK was shot from the front. The answer, I will once again state. There had to be immediate "frame excision" because there was something captured in those excised frames, that was far more incriminating and damning to the plotters than what they felt could be passed off, to "most of the public", as an abnormal gunshot reaction....ie "jet effect" etc. etc. !

That most vivid and unreal image of JFK being slammed backward was not of course a pre planned goal. It was an error that resulted by the excision

of the "incriminating" frames. They thought this image to be the lesser of two evils....and more easily explained. It was an "undesirable outcome" !

What could be "more incriminating"? Perhaps an image of a shooter or a shot. More than one gunman!

CONSPIRACY !

Most have been brainwashed to believe the only explanation put forward in defence of Zapruder film virginity..... that it would have been "impossible" for some of the most brilliant minds in the world,

to solve a mechanical problem. The most brilliant people with the most advanced equipment, and extremely dedicated. They could not solve the mechanical problem of altering Kodacolor II film.

We can travel to and retrieve samples from Mars....

But We Cannot Alter A Strip of Film !

I am proud to not claim to believe such a ridiculous statement, regardless of how many times Bill Miller and others tell me that I cannot understand because I am too unlearned.

Many of you have fallen for, and I can understand somewhat why, the possibly greatest hoax ever put over on an "unexpecting" and naive public.

As long as the Z film is accepted as fact..NO PROGRESS will be made toward true closure of this seeming enigma.

There is no sense in me further repeating what I have been saying for years.

I sincerely wish that I were one of you "True Believers" !

Charlie Black

CHARLIE...YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY SO MANY

SMART PEOPLE CANNOT SEE IT LIKE YOU DO. WELL STATED INDEED!!!!

All of the "evidence" was controlled from the start. Why is the Z film

"exempt"? IT SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSPIRATORS WANTED US TO

SEE...an enigma contrary to witness statements which TRUMPS ANYTHING

ANYBODY SAW OR SAID...because "it shows what happened". All facets

of the kill plan were CONTROLLED!!!!

Jack

[Paul Rigby]

You must know what is coming.....especially from me!

You cannot explain the head wound for a very simple reason. Your determination is being made on a false basic premise. The truth which is recognized by a great many who do not have their heads buried in the sand, is that the government / conspirators have presented an unexplainable scenario.....yet you are trying to make sense of a nonsensical situation. It didn't occur as SEEN on Zapruder.

Best post of recent weeks, Charlie.

To give a concrete example of what Charlie's getting at.

Factor in the "missing" left veer of the presidential limo and at least two key pieces of the jigsaw fall instantly into place: the peculiar specificity of Hargis' description of where the brain matter struck his windshield; and that extraordinary series of stills capturing the retrieval of a discharged cartridge case from the south curb of Elm.

Watching grown men swop forgeries to their hearts content must greatly amuse Langley. Come to think of it, it does me, too.

Paul

[Dawn Meredith]

\

Watching grown men swop forgeries to their hearts content must greatly amuse Langley. Come to think of it, it does me, too.

Paul

Just exactly what about it amuses you? Is this some sort of parlour game?

Dawn

[Paul Rigby]

\

Watching grown men swop forgeries to their hearts content must greatly amuse Langley. Come to think of it, it does me, too.

Paul

Just exactly what about it amuses you? Is this some sort of parlour game?

Dawn

Dawn,

The alternative is tears. Better laughter. There are some tremendously bright and sincere people who seem to me to utterly misguided in their obsession with the photographic record. It strikes me as a great pity that they're not applying otherwise first rate minds to getting us off that bloody CIA fall-back position on the grassy knoll.

Paul

Edited December 27, 2006 by Paul Rigby

[Bill Miller]

CHARLIE...YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY SO MANY

SMART PEOPLE CANNOT SEE IT LIKE YOU DO. WELL STATED INDEED!!!!

All of the "evidence" was controlled from the start. Why is the Z film

"exempt"? IT SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSPIRATORS WANTED US TO

SEE...an enigma contrary to witness statements which TRUMPS ANYTHING

ANYBODY SAW OR SAID...because "it shows what happened". All facets

of the kill plan were CONTROLLED!!!!

Jack

Jack, smart people have examined the evidence and found your position to be terribly flawed. David Healy stated that even a first generation copy will show slight fuzziness to the images ... Zavada and Groden both have examined the alleged camera original and said those said signs of it being a copy was not there.

[Charles Black]

I am quite surprised that this particuar thread did not stir more controversy !

This film has been THE stumbling block of assassination research for more than thirty years.

If the film was not available as both a timeline and a CRUTCH to the governments position, the truth of this hideous affair would have been exposed many years ago. This film is a most prime example of the old maxim...B___ S--- "in" produces B___ S___ "out"

As long as this film is depended upon to be the "IN" portion of this equation, what can be expected to come out. I feel that most on this forum realize this but, are extremely reluctant to admit that this "Holy Grail" is a man made myth ! We cling to the Z film only, IMHO, because most of what else we thought factual has been disproven. I feel that the only thing that we for certain know, is that JFK was killed at appx. 12:30 CST on 11/22/63, by an uncertain number of gunshot wounds striking his head and torso, which eminated from a shooter or shooters who were concealed in unknown locations !

I very strongly feel that the reason that we do not know more, is that we have been purposely and strategically blocked. The physical portion of this block has been our willing acceptance of a piece of film....which was allowed to be possibly stolen to assist the conspirators in their deception.

I feel that we, in reality, have uncovered virtually nothing that could be used to prosecute ANY of the conspirators. What we feel that we have uncovered, I liken to hiding children's Easter Eggs. We still know only what we have been allowed to know.

The execution of this crime and the 43 year perpetuation of its cover, has been the most clever hoax in all of recorded history. This by hundreds of times is more clever than the "Trojan Horse Myth."

Yet those who most avidly argue my position, bring forth mental giants such as Zavada and Groden, to support the position that because Groden and Zavada cannot explain how this film can be undetectably altered, that there were those with stratospheric IQ's who also could not do so. It is as if they feel that superior intelligence did not exist prior to the present time! I don't even feel that this qualifies as argument.

If this piece of garbage (the Z film), is ever exposed for what it truly is....we will then easily have a "Case Closed" !

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

CHARLIE...YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY SO MANY

SMART PEOPLE CANNOT SEE IT LIKE YOU DO. WELL STATED INDEED!!!!

All of the "evidence" was controlled from the start. Why is the Z film

"exempt"? IT SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSPIRATORS WANTED US TO

SEE...an enigma contrary to witness statements which TRUMPS ANYTHING

ANYBODY SAW OR SAID...because "it shows what happened". All facets

of the kill plan were CONTROLLED!!!!

Jack

Jack, smart people have examined the evidence and found your position to be terribly flawed. David Healy stated that even a first generation copy will show slight fuzziness to the images ... Zavada and Groden both have examined the alleged camera original and said those said signs of it being a copy was not there.

ALLEGED camera original? A Freudian slip? Or is "Miller" cracking up?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

ALLEGED camera original? A Freudian slip? Or is "Miller" cracking up?

Jack

Jack, is this all you can say? It was alleged until someone went there and saw the things that show it to be an in-camera original film. If I need to, I can go back and post what David Healy had to say as to how even a first generation copy will show fuzziness to even the cleanest frames. Healy (mirrowing Groden's remarks) made that comment in a way to suggest that everyone who knows anything will know this .... I assume that meant you as well. So Zavada has done it and Groden has done it - have you done it? If you have not done it, then why not? Is it because you avoid any opportunity to have to admit that your alteration claims ended up like a boat that took on so much water that it now sits at the bottom of the lake!

Bill Miller

Edited December 29, 2006 by Bill Miller