Charles Black Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 For years I have on this forum and on two others asked one simple question, which for all of these years and literally thousands of posts, never has been satisfactorily answered by anyone. By a "satisfactory" answer, I mean an answer that could reasonably be believed by reasonably educated and reasonably sound minded persons world wide. Among the latest of these has been the "Craig Roberts, Kill Zone" thread. I have asked "dozens" if not a hundred or more times, for one simple explanation. I have received only "One and The Same Answer", which I feel that most people, with the ability to reason for themselves, should find ABSURD. In advance I shall tell you the "ONLY" answer that I find unrealistic, unreasonable and absurd. That pat answer is simply that "ALL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE". Not minding being redundant, I shall say one more time, that if this ridiculous statement were true, that there should be no reliable History recorded before the mid nineteenth century, since all historical events were based on eyewitness descriptions. My "ONE" point in fact is this and please do not attempt to change "any" of the wording. All of the dozens of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses which gave testimony "ON THE AFTERNOON OF 11/22/63 ONLY", reported something not only UNLIKE, but CONTRADICTORY, to what is exhibited on the extant Zapruder film. I cannot allow testimony that may have been "later changed" as the result of a multitude of reasons. None of those reasons howevever will express the theory that, MEMORY IMPROVES with the passage of time ! I am not going to be ridiculous enough to to requote these testimonies and the times that they were given, because everyone to whom I am delivering this message, has long been aware of them. NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963, reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 ! If you want a secondary matter to toss about regarding eyewitness testimony, contrast the eyewitness descriptions at Parkland Trauma versus some of the Bethesda photos. Really think about this if one of your answer is going to be that one piece of scalp is being held up at Bethesda and another was patted down at Parkland. Why would the Bethesda autopsy team be innocently holding up this piece of scalp. I thought that the purpose of autopsy photos was to "record factually" the wounds.... not to disguise them. I am willing to wager that not many of you researchers, who "truly" have an open mind, will be very impressed with the explanations given. Yet you continue to shy away from the obviously "ONLY" answer ! It is as if unswerving belief in the truth of all film, and the lack of certain films "successful alterability", is a faith that must be maintained for those truly seeking a passage to heaven. How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers ? Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963,reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 ! There's a head snap in the Nix film. Is that film not a "witness"? Or was the Nix film altered too (to deliberately put in a backward movement of the head)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 some eye witnesses are very unreliable and I found along time ago that you want to seperate them before they can pollute each other recollections. the reccollections of professionals like the Emergency Room Dr's at Parkland I have great confidence in. So I guess I have a simple question too. How many times do people see the President of the United States murdered in front of them? Additionally, I learned at Homicide you need to ask very specific, very narrow questions. Every witness has a speck of gold on them and with the right questions, it might turn into the mother lode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 What to do when two eyewitnesses to the same event recollect different things? Prefer the one that bolsters your theory? Do they cancel each other out? If you ever listen to US talk radio, you know that there are varying degress of intellect out there, people have a wide range of ability to process information. Think about it like this: you're watching a baseball game on TV. A batter hits the ball and races to first base. You see him touch the base with his right foot. Yet the umpire calls him out. You jump up from your chair - what an outrage! That guy is blind! Then they slow the film down, maybe play the scene from another angle. And there it is: the runner was, in fact, tagged out appropriately. His foot only appeared to touch the base. This happens constantly in sporting events - people see things differently than the way they really happen. Therefore, eyewitness testimony can be instructive. It can add to the weight of existing theories. On occasion it can be illuminating. But it can in no way be considered more important than other forms of evidence. It must be taken as a part of a whole, and scrutinized with an ounce of skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963,reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 ! There's a head snap in the Nix film. Is that film not a "witness"? Or was the Nix film altered too (to deliberately put in a backward movement of the head)? RON You are absolutely correct ! The Nix film is NOT an eyewitness ! Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963,reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 ! There's a head snap in the Nix film. Is that film not a "witness"? Or was the Nix film altered too (to deliberately put in a backward movement of the head)? Hi, Ron. I don't see the headsnap in that Nix film. I see Jackie's right hand fly up, so it must be obscured. Charles, the fact that all the Parkland hospital doctors saw John Kennedy one way, and the Bethesda hospital doctors all saw Kennedy's body looking quite different is either: 1. The Bethesda doctors were lying or; 2. Someone altered the body after it left Parkland hospital -- which may be why Arthur Schlesinger, as I said on another thread, told Bobby Kennedy to close the coffin as it wasn't John Kennedy, it was a "wax dummy." Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963,reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 ! There's a head snap in the Nix film. Is that film not a "witness"? Or was the Nix film altered too (to deliberately put in a backward movement of the head)? All films and photos were altered to some extent to bolster the official story. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 In an attempt to save forum time and space, I shall attempt to respond to the posts so far in this thread, with this one response. Jack White---I think that you are most likely "right on" ! Evan Marshall---I don't think that you are making a serious attempt to address the question which I proposed. I am saying that every eyewitness (dozens), reported the same identical actions. Please remember that I made a "major issue" of addressing only testimony taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63, before any of these eye witnesses were influenced by the testimony of others. Do you think that all of these people had a similar "miraculous vision" in which they all are convinced that they witnessed the same reaction of JFK.....but this is not what really happened, because you know absolutely that these government controlled filmed pieces of evidence, could not have been tampered with. As a law enforcement officer, do you also maintain that there is never an attempt by some personnel "in law enforcement" to plant false evidence? Why should any thinking person dismiss that during a National coup d' etat, that the conspirators would not "mishandle evidence" ? And that ordinary bystanders all chose miraculously to tell the same lie ? Come on Evan ! Mark---you did not address my question. We are not talking about "CONFLICTING" eye witness testimony. We are speaking of dozens of independently taken testimonies on the afternoon of 11/22/63 which are all in agreement ! Kathleen----There is one more "OR" that you failed to mention, tho what you did state may very well be true. The other "OR" is--------"OR the photos at Bethesda have been grossly altered", and that is what has caused the confusion. With the "possible" exception of some testimony of the autopsists.....several of these pictures are what NO ONE reported seeing. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Hi, Ron. I don't see the headsnap in that Nix film. I see Jackie's right hand fly up, so it must be obscured.Kathy If you can't see JFK's head moving back after the shot, what can I say? Does anyone else see it, or has this stuff just finally made me delusional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) When I reached the "but person A said blank and the Zapruder film shows something different" divide, I decided to analyze what was said and correlate it with the other testimony. No one person's words could be taken at face value. When I looked at all the evidence, I saw that the witnesses, the Z-film, and the autopsy photos all complement each other quite nicely. Let's take for example, the Franzens. They described an explosion in the car. No one closer to Kennedy reported this explosion. Some literalists, however, take the Franzen's statements to mean a firecracker exploded in the car, or that Kennedy was killed by the driver. It's clear when one considers where the Franzens were standing, and the statements of those around them, on the other hand, that the explosion they saw was the explosion of Kennedy's head at frame 313. The only part that doesn't fit is the Parkland witnesses' description of a wound on the back of the head. Once I started reading books and magazines on human cognition, this made total sense as well. People DO NOT remember things accurately. We are not video-tape machines. Within our minds we are always forcing shapes and patterns to fit pre-conceived ideas. The wound the Parkland witnesses saw at the back of Kennedy's head was on the top of his head while he was laying on his back with his feet in the air, which put it at the back of the space occupied by his head. In our stubborn refusal to admit our own failure as an accurate recording device, we give undue weight to the recollections of others. A large percentage of wrong verdicts in criminal cases come from the over-reliance by jurors on eyewitness testimony. Prosecutors know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and highly prone to suggestion, yet use it anyhow because juries fall for it over and over. When one looks at the evidence as a whole, it all fits. Edited to correct my boneheaded mix-up of Franzens for Hesters. Duh. Edited March 7, 2007 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Let's take for example, the Hesters. They described an explosion in the car. No one closer to Kennedy reported this explosion. Pat, Regardless of one's opinion of the precise degree of SS complicity, this simply isn't true. Here's four examples, and a boon, for starters: 1.Bobby Hargis (Police motorcycle outrider, left rear of limousine): Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots? Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294. 2. Austin Miller (railroad worker, on triple overpass): Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?” Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225. 3. Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): The shots came from “in front of or beside” the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, first post-assassination edition, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176. 4. Officer E. L. Boone was standing on the corner of Main and Houston Streets when the shots rang out:"I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508. 5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. in the Dallas County Sheriffs Office…"I saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or around the President's car," Some literalists, however, take the Hester's statements to mean a firecracker exploded in the car, or that Kennedy was killed by the driver.On the latter, what an outlandish proposition! It is, after all, self-evidently easier to shoot a man in car from 40ft to 150yds with a rifle than it is from under 10ft with a handgun. Still, on the plus side, at least you've offered a new definition of a "literalist" - a critic who reads and quotes the bits of testimony WC-ers and their bosom pals, the grassy knollers, won't. It's clear when one considers where the Hesters were standing, and the statements of those around them, on the other hand, that the explosion they saw was the explosion of Kennedy's head at frame 313. Nope, it ain't clear. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 Pat Speer I genuinely am not attempting to be rude but in my train of thought, very truthful. If this truly in your mind perfectly gels, and makes sense to you, please don't yet cease your quest for more books on cognition. I truly realize that there are cognitive limitations. They however do not extend to the point that on any occasion, you may arbitrarily take the perceptions of a large number of mentally cognizant persons, and at your will suggest that the group is incognizant, because a picture shows something different than what the many cognizants observed. This is truly fishing and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g far beyond reasonable limitations. I am familiar with your presentation, so inviting me to partake is not the answer. Were I comparing one eyewitness interpretation to a film, of questionable authenticity......I am not certain that even in this instance, which I would choose. But we are not referring to one person's cognizance. We are referring to a group, many of which I personally feel are quite highly qualified, who have reported the same event, in the same manner, without outside influence, on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. To intimate that this entire group is unaware of what they saw, casts, in my opinion, a great shadow upon anyone claiming cognizancy ! I am expected to believe, that a group of conspirators, with the power, money and access to the highest levels of technology, and with the support of the braintrusts behind several of the worlds most proficient intelligence agencies, was in posession of a piece of evidence of the utmost importance to the perpetration of a Coup d' Etat on the most powerful government on earth, that they would have found it impossible to alter beyond detection, an 8mm strip of Kodacolor II film. Am I to further believe that these government agencies did not want this film released, but they were outwitted by a clever citizen, and that is the only reason that it surfaced 30 years ago ? They of course did not want it to surface, but they were just "damned outsmarted." This may make perfect sense to you, but to my thinking, it is as obscenely absurd as an episode of the "Keystone Cops". Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) PLEASE EXCUSE...IF I COULD DOUBLE MY BANK ACCOUNT AS OFTEN AS I CAN DOUBLE POST....I WOULD BE ONE VERY HAPPY "INCOGNIZANT" ! I genuinely am not attempting to be rude but in my train of thought, very truthful. If this truly in your mind perfectly gels, and makes sense to you, please don't yet cease your quest for more books on cognition. I truly realize that there are cognitive limitations. They however do not extend to the point that on any occasion, you may arbitrarily take the perceptions of a large number of mentally cognizant persons, and at your will suggest that the group is incognizant, because a picture shows something different than what the many cognizants observed. This is truly fishing and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g far beyond reasonable limitations. I am familiar with your presentation, so inviting me to partake is not the answer. Were I comparing one eyewitness interpretation to a film, of questionable authenticity......I am not certain that even in this instance, which I would choose. But we are not referring to one person's cognizance. We are referring to a group, many of which I personally feel are quite highly qualified, who have reported the same event, in the same manner, without outside influence, on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. To intimate that this entire group is unaware of what they saw, casts, in my opinion, a great shadow upon anyone claiming cognizancy ! I am expected to believe, that a group of conspirators, with the power, money and access to the highest levels of technology, and with the support of the braintrusts behind several of the worlds most proficient intelligence agencies, was in posession of a piece of evidence of the utmost importance to the perpetration of a Coup d' Etat on the most powerful government on earth, that they would have found it impossible to alter beyond detection, an 8mm strip of Kodacolor II film. Am I to further believe that these government agencies did not want this film released, but they were outwitted by a clever citizen, and that is the only reason that it surfaced 30 years ago ? They of course did not want it to surface, but they were just "damned outsmarted." This may make perfect sense to you, but to my thinking, it is as obscenely absurd as an episode of the "Keystone Cops". Charlie Black Edited March 5, 2007 by Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's clear when one considers where the Hesters were standing, and the statements of those around them, on the other hand, that the explosion they saw was the explosion of Kennedy's head at frame 313. Nope, it ain't clear. Paul Paul. it's crystal clear. The bullet's impact would make quite a sound. Those closest to Kennedy would see the skull explode and hear this sound BEFORE they heard the gun fire. They might very well conclude from this that the shot came from the car. There is no evidence however for a firecracker exploding in the car. Zilch. None. I think Harry Holmes, watching through binoculars from across the Plaza, thought he saw confetti in the car. Nope. It was Kennedy's head exploding. What makes no sense is that the Hesters would watch the assassination, from as close as they did, and NOT see the skull explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 PLEASE EXCUSE...IF I COULD DOUBLE MY BANK ACCOUNT AS OFTEN AS I CAN DOUBLE POST....I WOULD BE ONE VERY HAPPY "INCOGNIZANT" !I genuinely am not attempting to be rude but in my train of thought, very truthful. If this truly in your mind perfectly gels, and makes sense to you, please don't yet cease your quest for more books on cognition. I truly realize that there are cognitive limitations. They however do not extend to the point that on any occasion, you may arbitrarily take the perceptions of a large number of mentally cognizant persons, and at your will suggest that the group is incognizant, because a picture shows something different than what the many cognizants observed. This is truly fishing and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g far beyond reasonable limitations. Charlie Black And your reasonable alternative is that mysterious men using mysterious technology faked a film that still showed conspiracy? Think about it. That makes no sense. Your assertion that I "arbitrarily" ignored the perceptions of a large number of mentally cognizant persons is not remotely true. As far as I know, I am the only person to try and understand how and why the Parkland witnesses could be wrong. And I found dozens of research papers on the strange fact that people--I mean ALL people, including so-called experts--have great difficulty rotating inverted facial images in their minds. People interpret faces differently when they are inverted. They interpret their features individually. In such case, a wound on top of the head in the middle of the hair, when a person is flat on his back with his feet over his head, could easily be mistaken for a wound on the back of the head behind the ear. When we think of people in our minds we almost inevitably think of them standing up. We take portraits standing up or sitting down. The head is always erect. We remember people's faces and bodies with them standing up. It is totally reasonable, perhaps even expected, then, that those viewing a wound on the back of Kennedy's head when he was laying on his back (the top of his head) would mistake it for a wound on the back of his head while standing up. If you'd rather believe that there is a mass conspiracy to deny that the ONE LARGE HEAD WOUND SEEN IN DALLAS, was at the back of Kennedy's head and that the wound on top of the head inf front of the ear, as noted immediately after the shots by Newman and Zapruder, and as captured on Zapruder's film and the autopsy photos, is some sort of fraud, I suppose there is nothing I can say to convince you. But you're wrong. You're choosing to think the world is chaos over admitting that maybe there's a pattern here that you refuse to see. The Zapruder film, autopsy photos, x-rays, and face sheet all demonstrate the strong likelihood Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, once one lets himself look at them. 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