My ONE Simple Unanswered Question !

[Ron Ecker]

What you should be asking yourself is why the Parkland witnesses remembered the wound differently than Newman and Zapruder. And the obvious answer is that they made a mistake.

Or the obvious answer is that Jackie closed the wound. (Part of her effort on the way to Parkland to "keep his head on," as I believe she put it.) Perhaps the Occam's Razor answer (one person's desperate action in a unique situation, as opposed to several experienced medical people simultaneously making the same mistake about the location of a gaping wound in their patient's head).

[Charles Black]

Hello Pat

You must well understand that I "repeatedly" referred to eye witness testimony "on the afternoon of 11/22".....I have stated that repeatedly.

Involving Newman, we are both right amd wrong. I have posted this before but the Newman Testimony to which you are referring, is not the testimony which he gave in Dealey Plaza immediately after the assassination. I have posted that testimony before, and will try to find and post it again. The testimony which you are referring to, occurred later in the afternon and was given at (I think) a radio station. The testimony had by then changed.

I feel that you even acknowledged this, tho it was some time ago.

I also don't know "what Zapruder testimony" that you are acknowldging that occurred "immediately" after the assassination.

Pat, I acknowledge your extensive work, however I don't agree with it.

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Hello Ron

There are only two ways in which I can respond to your questions.

For the first, I will ask you to refer to my last response to Pat Speer !

If what I think that you are telling is that you believe Newman and Zapruder are correct, and that all of the expert testimony given by the Parkland Staff is wrong because they were incapable of "cognizant orientation" of JFK's wounds......

There isn't a great deal that I feel I could respond to, that would make sense to you.

I would without doubt or hesitation, place my faith on the Parkand Staff...without the slightest pause.

Perhaps "I" am cognitively impaired, BUT , I feel that the Parklad testimony (which was given on the afternoon of 11/22 only) is the soundest and most solid evidence in this case.

As a matter of fact, I feel that the entire defence case could be based on this alone !

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Tim

What I truly don't understand is why you have taken it upon yourself to critique my writing style and to correct my sentence structure. I feel that it has been a needles waste of forum time and space to do this, since you added nothing substantive to the discussion. Tim, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but if I truly gave a damned about improving my writing style and sentence structure,

I probably would have continued my education and at leaste attempted to go on to high school !

I am not certain of any point that you were attempting to make, but did you infer that I was attacking the non altered Z film theory at a time when most of its defenders were not present on the forum....which is unfair ?

Regardless of what your intent, is or was, in choosing to attempt to ridicule me...I suppose that you have that right !

But if you ever expect me to "attempt" to respond to anything that you post, you must let your flaps down and descend slowly to my level.

To be more to the point, I have no idea if you have been asking me a question to do with this subject, or whether you were attempting, in a socially correct manner, to express disapproval of my writing style.

If it is my writing style...simply forget it, as I don't particularly care about your opinion of it.

If you are attempting to ask me a question, I'm afraid that you must lower yourself to a level which I might be able to comprehend.

I hope that those members who support your position of no film alteration, soon return in order to assist you.

Charlie Black

[Ron Ecker]

If what I think that you are telling is that you believe Newman and Zapruder are correct, and that all of the expert testimony given by the Parkland Staff is wrong because they were incapable of "cognizant orientation" of JFK's wounds......

Where did I say that? I believe the Parkland medical personnel were right in what they saw in terms of a large back head wound, corroborated by other witnesses beginning with Hill. I believe the most likely explanation for them not seeing the flap opened on the side of the head is that Jackie pressed it closed. The flap had reopened, in the course of apparent head mutilation, by the time of the autopsy at Bethesda.

[Terry Mauro]

Charles, I know we've been over this, but Newman and Zapruder did see the large head wound on the Zapruder film and on the autopsy photos.

What you should be asking yourself is why the Parkland witnesses remembered the wound differently than Newman and Zapruder. And the obvious answer is that they made a mistake.

As far as why the Z-film doesn't show what the witnesses remembered, well, I recently re-read every available statement from every known witness, and it does. The individuals all remembered the incident slightly differently. When one looks at all the statements, however, one sees a substantial amount of overlap, that forms a consensus. These points are all consistent with the Z-film, but one.

This point is that the last two shots were far closer together than the first two. This, when taken with the Z-film, is extremely strong evidence for a conspiracy, as the Z-film shows K and C react as though the first two shots were closer together. Now you can take your road and decide the Z-film must be fake, or you can follow the evidence and see that it suggests the use of a silencer, and a conspiracy. When you play the "we can't trust the Z-film" game you're playing into the hands of the lone-nutters, and folding with a winning hand.

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

"What you should be asking yourself is why the Parkland witnesses remembered the wound differently than Newman and Zapruder. And the obvious answer is that they made a mistake."

Who, made a mistake?

"When you play the "we can't trust the Z-film" game you're playing into the hands of the lone-nutters, and folding with a winning hand."

I believe the film was altered, and the splices have always been glaringly obvious, to me. This is the reason I refer to it as a cartoon, serving the exact purpose as you see right here. A means of continually fueling this eternally stuck-in-a-rut debate that never gets anywhere, ad infinitum. I fail to see how this plays into the hands of the LN'ers, considering the fact that the obvious flaws created by the obviously spliced finished product know as the Z-film, apparently serve more as an indictment of the coercion involved from the moment LIFE Magazine took possession of it. And, considering the players [Mockingbird] associated with that syndicated publishing company, the reasons should be as glaringly obvious as the splices made to the film.

[Charles Black]

When referring to the press coverage and the effect of the major magazine pictorials which were used, does anyone on the forum misunderstand the role and influence which Mr. & Mrs Luce, alone, exerted on the "medias" position?

Is there anyone here that doubts their political, and financial inclinations and the power and influence which they "in fact" brought to bear on this case ? Have you ever asked what effect Life Magazine and the major media had on the INITIAL impressions presented to the world ? And more importantly how those initial impressions stll affect this case?

I can say that I believe that the effect of the media, may have over the years, done more to disguise the truth than did the Warren Commission.

Does anyone believe that there is a "free press"?

What is reported by the media MUST of course be influenced by those who sign their paychecks.....or someone new is waiting and willing to fill their very high priced shoes.

What is reported is controlled by that same power that controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

To those who are now paid to be the "talking heads" to which we tune in daily, "free press" is as ridiculous a theory as "free sex." Neither truly exist.

Without planning, I happened to mention both the subjects of "sex" and Mr. & Mrs Luce in this same thread. For those of you who have not done so, I don't feel that you should be surprised at the partners whom they both chose for their extra-marital sexual affairs.... if you care to so investigate. But I won't spread gossip...even tho it can be referenced !

This truly is a very small and very wierd world in which we live. Six degrees of separation is not an exaggeration !

Charlie Black

Edited March 13, 2007 by Charles Black

[Chris Davidson]

When referring to the press coverage and the effect of the major magazine pictorials which were used, does anyone on the forum misunderstand the role and influence which Mr. & Mrs Luce, alone, exerted on the "medias" position?

Is there anyone here that doubts their political, and financial inclinations and the power and influence which they "in fact" brought to bear on this case ? Have you ever asked what effect Life Magazine and the major media had on the INITIAL impressions presented to the world ? And more importantly how those initial impressions stll affect this case?

I can say that I believe that the effect of the media, may have over the years, done more to disguise the truth than did the Warren Commission.

Does anyone believe that there is a "free press"?

What is reported by the media MUST of course be influenced by those who sign their paychecks.....or someone new is waiting and willing to fill their very high priced shoes.

What is reported is controlled by that same power that controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

To those who are now paid to be the "talking heads" to which we tune in daily, "free press" is as ridiculous a theory as "free sex." Neither truly exist.

Without planning, I happened to mention both the subjects of "sex" and Mr. & Mrs Luce in this same thread. For those of you who have not done so, I don't feel that you should be surprised at the partners whom they both chose for their extra-marital sexual affairs.... if you care to so investigate. But I won't spread gossip...even tho it can be referenced !

This truly is a very small and very wierd world in which we live. Six degrees of separation is not an exaggeration !

Charlie Black

Charlie,

They had the local press controlled fairly early, also.

According to Mary Woodward (Reporter), who was on Elm St. and saw Kennedy's head explode.

Some of her interview from "TMWKK".

chris

[Paul Rigby]

When referring to the press coverage and the effect of the major magazine pictorials which were used, does anyone on the forum misunderstand the role and influence which Mr. & Mrs Luce, alone, exerted on the "medias" position?

Is there anyone here that doubts their political, and financial inclinations and the power and influence which they "in fact" brought to bear on this case ? Have you ever asked what effect Life Magazine and the major media had on the INITIAL impressions presented to the world ? And more importantly how those initial impressions stll affect this case?

Charlie,

If you're aware of the following, apologies, but if not, try these books on Luce and his empire. Both are informative places to start:

W.A. Swanberg. Luce and His Empire (NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1973);

George Seldes. 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A. (NY: Boni & Gaer, Inc., 1947).

Luce was a committed pro-fascist until at least the late-30s, albeit one content to hide behind his minions, most notably Laird S. Goldsborough. His opposition to the Kennedy White House was unconcealed. That his empire controlled - ostensibly, at least - the film of Kennedy's murder is nothing short of extraordinary. Even more extraordinary is the blind-eye turned to this by apparent truth-seekers such as Weisberg and Garrison.

Does anyone believe that there is a "free press"?

Not a sign of it in the UK - things any better in the States?

Paul

[Tim Carroll]

Tim. What I truly don't understand is why you have taken it upon yourself to critique my writing style and to correct my sentence structure. I feel that it has been a needles waste of forum time and space to do this, since you added nothing substantive to the discussion. Tim, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but if I truly gave a damned about improving my writing style and sentence structure, I probably would have continued my education and at leaste attempted to go on to high school !

Point taken. Charles has no use for education. What seduced my interest in this thread was the title about "ONE simple unanswered question." Rather than finding a single such a question, I found numerous issues raised, ranging from film alteration to the nature of all centuries-old evidence being first person witnessing. Rather than finding a simple question, none was ever posed. I do see a particular emphasis on the Parkland witnesses and their appropriate standing with regard to subsequent evidence from the Bethesda autopsy and the use of altered films of the events in Dealey Plaza.

My "critique" of Charles' writing style was/is directed at the heavy-handed attack on so many sincere researchers who don't consider these matters "simple," and whose efforts were treated in the opening post of this thread as easily dismissible. While admittedly having a strong respect for education and its emphasis on development of critical reasoning, I consider the only "simple" thing about this case to be those who consider it simple. The condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with Charles on any point is glaring.

I am ill beyond my own ability to absorb the prospects, and have now acquired a laptop so that I may occupy my time from bed. I tried to find the "ONE simple question" and sincerely could not. I see references to earlier threads, of which I'm admittedly not familiar, and shouldn't have to be, given the title of this thread. But now that I have really tried to "infer" the intended point I can easily say that Ron Ecker's point about Jackie possibly closing the head flap truly is the Occam's Razor explanation. Similarly, Pat Speer has done excellent work toward understanding how the Parkland witnesses could have gotten plenty wrong. I made my own point about how so many witnesses could have heard so few shots without any acknowledgment from Mr. Black.

I am not certain of any point that you were attempting to make, but did you infer that I was attacking the non altered Z film theory at a time when most of its defenders were not present on the forum....which is unfair? Regardless of what your intent, is or was, in choosing to attempt to ridicule me...I suppose that you have that right !

Gee thanks.

If you are attempting to ask me a question, I'm afraid that you must lower yourself to a level which I might be able to comprehend.

After working through this thread following the false inducement that it came down to "ONE simple question," I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ? (I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing).

Another question: do intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?

As for your repeated questioning of my contribution to an understanding of this case, if you have looked at the seminars you've seen that the one I wrote on "The Whole Bay Of Pigs Things" had far more viewings and participation of any seminar by anyone who isn't a forum administrator.

Tim Carroll

[Charles Black]

Hello Paul

Thanks for the references. Things are so foul that it is not a wonder that many won't allow themselves to believe the truth. The influence of the Luce Clan alone could fill volumes that most innocents would not believe !

As far as "Free Press" over here.....not even a glimmer.

It is bad enough that it isn't "free".....but the actual "cost" of it is what is sinking us. I feel that we already have a 30 degree list to "starboard"! If maybe we could rid ourselves of the bilge...? No I am afraid we have passed that point also !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

[Shanet Clark]

It seems reasonable to believe ALL the eyewitnesses...

JFK went into the Texas Parkland Hospital and civilians saw the

back of his head blown out from gunshots from the front, AND

military doctors at the Maryland Bethesda Hospital officers saw

a deep skull wound above the ear

and the skull is shattered in the Xray

........ what is the problem ???

[Terry Mauro]

It seems reasonable to believe ALL the eyewitnesses...

JFK went into the Texas Parkland Hospital and civilians saw the

back of his head blown out from gunshots from the front, AND

military doctors at the Maryland Bethesda Hospital officers saw

a deep skull wound above the ear

and the skull is shattered in the Xray

........ what is the problem ???

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

Precisely.

[Terry Mauro]

Tim. What I truly don't understand is why you have taken it upon yourself to critique my writing style and to correct my sentence structure. I feel that it has been a needles waste of forum time and space to do this, since you added nothing substantive to the discussion. Tim, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but if I truly gave a damned about improving my writing style and sentence structure, I probably would have continued my education and at leaste attempted to go on to high school !

Point taken. Charles has no use for education. What seduced my interest in this thread was the title about "ONE simple unanswered question." Rather than finding a single such a question, I found numerous issues raised, ranging from film alteration to the nature of all centuries-old evidence being first person witnessing. Rather than finding a simple question, none was ever posed. I do see a particular emphasis on the Parkland witnesses and their appropriate standing with regard to subsequent evidence from the Bethesda autopsy and the use of altered films of the events in Dealey Plaza.

My "critique" of Charles' writing style was/is directed at the heavy-handed attack on so many sincere researchers who don't consider these matters "simple," and whose efforts were treated in the opening post of this thread as easily dismissible. While admittedly having a strong respect for education and its emphasis on development of critical reasoning, I consider the only "simple" thing about this case to be those who consider it simple. The condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with Charles on any point is glaring.

I am ill beyond my own ability to absorb the prospects, and have now acquired a laptop so that I may occupy my time from bed. I tried to find the "ONE simple question" and sincerely could not. I see references to earlier threads, of which I'm admittedly not familiar, and shouldn't have to be, given the title of this thread. But now that I have really tried to "infer" the intended point I can easily say that Ron Ecker's point about Jackie possibly closing the head flap truly is the Occam's Razor explanation. Similarly, Pat Speer has done excellent work toward understanding how the Parkland witnesses could have gotten plenty wrong. I made my own point about how so many witnesses could have heard so few shots without any acknowledgment from Mr. Black.

I am not certain of any point that you were attempting to make, but did you infer that I was attacking the non altered Z film theory at a time when most of its defenders were not present on the forum....which is unfair? Regardless of what your intent, is or was, in choosing to attempt to ridicule me...I suppose that you have that right !

Gee thanks.

If you are attempting to ask me a question, I'm afraid that you must lower yourself to a level which I might be able to comprehend.

After working through this thread following the false inducement that it came down to "ONE simple question," I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ? (I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing).

Another question: do intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?

As for your repeated questioning of my contribution to an understanding of this case, if you have looked at the seminars you've seen that the one I wrote on "The Whole Bay Of Pigs Things" had far more viewings and participation of any seminar by anyone who isn't a forum administrator.

Tim Carroll

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

"I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ?"

You're asking, "the identity to which you refer when you assert with absolute certainty." Asserting with certainty, although I'm not so sure I would call it absolute. But, since you've asked, how about Allen Dulles, at the behest of Rockefeller [David], and McCloy. With E.H. Hunt in charge of the mechanics' detail, and paymaster of that payroll. Just to mention a few names.

"(I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing)."

Not as astonishing as I found the fact that Zap sold the film to Time for $1.00, to be. I found that to be downright incredulous, but true!

"Another question: do intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?"

James Richards? Never, will I EVER "be so smugly dismissing of" James Richards' work, nor person, for that matter. I owe him too much for his time and consideration. Not to mention his unflagging dedication to this, as well as to the three other forums I belong to, and to which he's unselfishly contributed over the years.

Larry Hancock? I've never read his book, never claimed to have done so, and have never recommended it, having not read it, myself. Therefore, I have no comment, except that he seems like a sincere enough person.

Bill Miller? Well, after a long talk on the phone today with my good friend, Bernie [bernice Moore], who happened to have pointed out this fact: that in all her research [and believe me, Bernice has been doing some very intensive research work over these past five years], she has come to the conclusion that if there's one thing Bill Miller has gotten correct, it has been with the trajectories of the crossfire, or the triangulation, however you want to phrase it. And Bernie, I hope you don't get pissed at me for using your name in this post, but you made me proud to have known you all these years. Especially, after having taken the time to explain all of that to me, today.

Robert Groden? Is a cheap, petty larcenist for having absconded with Mo Weitzman's copy of the film. Then, turning around and using it as his own, proceeding to go around passing himself off as some kind of cinematographic expert? He's nothing more than a hawker, or a barker, who'd be much more at home in front of one of those strip joints in New Orleans, or Dallas, if you ask me. And no. I do not know him, and personally do not care to, either. But, since you did ask... And yes, Dawnie knows what I think of him, and we agree to disagree on Groden.

Of course, these are my opinions, and mine alone, except where I may have alluded to others. And, if I've somehow managed to overstep my bounds, or possibly have stepped on anyone's toes, then I duly apologize.

But, I'm glad you took my advice about getting a laptop, T.C. I wish you as speedy a recovery as possible, Bunky.

Love,

Ter

Edited March 14, 2007 by Terry Mauro

[Tim Carroll]

"I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ?"

You're asking, "the identity to which you refer when you assert with absolute certainty." Asserting with certainty, although I'm not so sure I would call it absolute. But, since you've asked, how about Allen Dulles, at the behest of Rockefeller [David], and McCloy. With E.H. Hunt in charge of the mechanics' detail, and paymaster of that payroll. Just to mention a few names.

I thought I was asking about Charles Black's assertion of certainty, not Terry Mauro's. Nor do I understand the underlying reason for her answering for Mr. Black. I understand that Terry gravitates to the Sullivan and Cromwell axis, representatives of old monied eastern establishmentarians such as the Rockefellers, Harrimans, United Fruit, etc. My question was addressed to the following statement:

I know "WHO" did it, other than the mechanics who actually pulled the trigger. I merely need a way to show the world that the conspiracy of Z film alteration could "only" be accomplished by those "Elite Few" who controlled the assassination and cover up. I know of no other way that there exists an opportunity of proving it.

"(I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing)."

Not as astonishing as I found the fact that Zap sold the film to Time for $1.00, to be. I found that to be downright incredulous, but true!

Not true! It was Time that sold the film back to Zapruder for $1.00.

"Another question: do you intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?"

James Richards? Never, will I EVER "be so smugly dismissing of" James Richards' work, nor person, for that matter. I owe him too much for his time and consideration. Not to mention his unflagging dedication to this, as well as to the three other forums I belong to, and to which he's unselfishly contributed over the years.

How can one so single-mindedly support film alteration and simultaneously support the advancements James Richards has made?

Larry Hancock? I've never read his book, never claimed to have done so, and have never recommended it, having not read it, myself. Therefore, I have no comment, except that he seems like a sincere enough person.

Bill Miller? Well, after a long talk on the phone today with my good friend, Bernie [bernice Moore], who happened to have pointed out this fact: that in all her research [and believe me, Bernice has been doing some very intensive research work over these past five years], she has come to the conclusion that if there's one thing Bill Miller has gotten correct, it has been with the trajectories of the crossfire, or the triangulation, however you want to phrase it. And Bernie, I hope you don't get pissed at me for using your name in this post, but you made me proud to have known you all these years. Especially, after having taken the time to explain all of that to me, today.

Robert Groden? Is a cheap, petty larcenist for having absconded with Mo Weitzman's copy of the film. Then, turning around and using it as his own, proceeding to go around passing himself off as some kind of cinematographic expert? He's nothing more than a hawker, or a barker, who'd be much more at home in front of one of those strip joints in New Orleans, or Dallas, if you ask me. And no. I do not know him, and personally do not care to, either. But, since you did ask... And yes, Dawnie knows what I think of him, and we agree to disagree on Groden.

Charles' proposition that finding who controlled the Zapruder Film is intrinsic to finding the conspirators has plenty of merit. I have felt the same way about the autopsy photos. But to blame Groden rather than the government (not just the Luce empire) is rather like killing the messenger. Why was the American public kept from seeing the film for almost 12 years? I believe that Groden performed a deed of patriotism, as did his accomplices Dick Gregory and Geraldo Rivera, when they showed the film to the public late one night in March, 1975. It's viewing singularly reawakened the public to the duplicity of the cover-up.

I can't really respond to views of Bill Miller as they relate to Bernice Moore's support or lack thereof. That would be basing one's view of history on who they hang out with in the schoolyard. I have had vociferous arguments with Bill Miller, and consider him too often to take on the role of shill for Gary Mack. But I do recognize his expertise with the film work and do not consider his opinions to be the products of a dishonest promotion of the Secret Government.

Finally, regarding which matters Dawn and Terry "agree to disagree," I have to assume that, according to Carl Oglesby's framework, Dawn considers it Cowboys and Terry considers it Yankees. I am closer to Dawn's position on that one and find the subsequent history to be supportive of the idea that the nouveau riche Big Oil, now aligned with the Saudis, overthrew President Kennedy's Yankees.

Tim