My ONE Simple Unanswered Question !

[Kathleen Collins]

Ron, Mark & Charles

I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:

(i) No need for a single bullet theory.

(ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear.

(iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist.

Chris Brown

Chris, I agree with you 100%. Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity. The govt would have you believe he was shot from behind. But when I watch the film, it's so obvious to me he was shot from his right front. So they're telling you he was shot from behind, but you're seeing a side/frontal shot. Don't people believe their eyes anymore? That's why I can't understand why they ever released that film!

And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com.

Kathy

[Terry Mauro]

Ron, Mark & Charles

I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:

(i) No need for a single bullet theory.

(ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear.

(iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist.

Chris Brown

Chris, I agree with you 100%. Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity. The govt would have you believe he was shot from behind. But when I watch the film, it's so obvious to me he was shot from his right front. So they're telling you he was shot from behind, but you're seeing a side/frontal shot. Don't people believe their eyes anymore? That's why I can't understand why they ever released that film!

And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com.

Kathy

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

"Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity."

In 1975 Time-Life sold it to the Z family for $1.00. No one actually ever released it to the public. Groden stole the film from Moe Weitzman and showed it on Goodnight America in 1975.

"And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com."

Always playing the eternal victim, aren't you. You got thrown off for making ad hominem attacks, some of which were targeted at the Admin, BTW.

[Kathleen Collins]

Ron, Mark & Charles

I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:

(i) No need for a single bullet theory.

(ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear.

(iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist.

Chris Brown

Chris, I agree with you 100%. Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity. The govt would have you believe he was shot from behind. But when I watch the film, it's so obvious to me he was shot from his right front. So they're telling you he was shot from behind, but you're seeing a side/frontal shot. Don't people believe their eyes anymore? That's why I can't understand why they ever released that film!

And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com.

Kathy

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

"Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity."

In 1975 Time-Life sold it to the Z family for $1.00. No one actually ever released it to the public. Groden stole the film from Moe Weitzman and showed it on Goodnight America in 1975.

"And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com."

Always playing the eternal victim, aren't you. You got thrown off for making ad hominem attacks, some of which were targeted at the Admin, BTW.

I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald.

I got thrown off of jfkresearch.com -- no hard feelings -- because Admin took a dislike to me and cursed at me. I cursed back. Besides that, I reacted harshly, when I should have ignored it, but I only had problems with you and "Monk." You both individually attaked me and were surprised by my verbal retaliation. I thought someone was my best friend over there and I don't know what happened. I felt he was "picking" on me. But it was fun while it lasted, Terri. Where's my crucifix?

Love,

Kathy

[Bernice Moore]

Kathy:

This is entirely your decision......But this is not the JFK research forum....

This is the Education forum..........why you seem to have taken several times the

opportunity, when responding to posts to mention your past problems on such, is beyond me..

Which also is seen as diverting the thread....

When it has absolutely nothing to do with, and is none of this particular Forums nor it's

memberships business....and I doubt very much that many if any ,are what I would call

interested in a personal occurrance, that happened so long ago, on another forum.

Why not let it pass and get on with your research.....

B....

[Terry Mauro]

Ron, Mark & Charles

I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:

(i) No need for a single bullet theory.

(ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear.

(iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist.

Chris Brown

Chris, I agree with you 100%. Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity. The govt would have you believe he was shot from behind. But when I watch the film, it's so obvious to me he was shot from his right front. So they're telling you he was shot from behind, but you're seeing a side/frontal shot. Don't people believe their eyes anymore? That's why I can't understand why they ever released that film!

And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com.

Kathy

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

"Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity."

In 1975 Time-Life sold it to the Z family for $1.00. No one actually ever released it to the public. Groden stole the film from Moe Weitzman and showed it on Goodnight America in 1975.

"And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com."

Always playing the eternal victim, aren't you. You got thrown off for making ad hominem attacks, some of which were targeted at the Admin, BTW.

I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald.

I got thrown off of jfkresearch.com -- no hard feelings -- because Admin took a dislike to me and cursed at me. I cursed back. Besides that, I reacted harshly, when I should have ignored it, but I only had problems with you and "Monk." You both individually attaked me and were surprised by my verbal retaliation. I thought someone was my best friend over there and I don't know what happened. I felt he was "picking" on me. But it was fun while it lasted, Terri. Where's my crucifix?

Love,

Kathy

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

"I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald."

Kathy, the gov. or what you think of as "the gov." had nothing to do with the murder. The real perps are the Rockefellers, Morgans, Pawley's, Sarnoff's, McCloys, Werbell's, Harrimans, Brown Root., etc. and et.al. People like the Dulles' could be considered as their corporate attorneys, to try and simplify this as best I can. The government of the United States is nothing more than a facade for the elites to work behind. All decisions that concern not only this country, but the world. are not made in D.C., per se. That's just for show, or to con the citizens into believing that they have a government that is actually working for them, when in reality the decisions and deals are made on Wall Street, and London, and even Rome. The really big decisions, Kath. Not what you think, or have been led to believe in. All roads lead to New York and London, that is where the REAL capitol is. The capitols of the world, that actually rule and run, the world, or The Global Capitol, in some circles. The P.O.T.U.S. is a puppet, much like the dictators put into power in those Third World countries, the global corporations annex resources from. But, here's the catch, they do it in the name of democracy. They plunder, steal, and pillage other nation states' natural resources, all in the name of democracy, and in the name of the United States, and it's mother ship, the United Kingdom, with absolutely no regard for international law, or The Geneva Accords. Why? Because they answer to no one, pledge allegiance to no one. Why? Because they've set it in stone for themselves since the 1500's, and regardless of whomever may come down the pike, be it Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or JFK. They will never relinquish their hold on the world's resources because they believe they are the only chosen few families allowed to possess that kind of divine right of entitlement. Anyone else coming along with ideas of freedom and democracy for the common man, is eventually liquidated, and the old guard reclaims the treasury. Just like that, in a heartbeat, via a gunshot, or a poisoned dart.

So, you can chase your gov. down til the cows come home and all your doing is wasting your time chasing a myth, or a paper tiger. This country's Declaration and Constitution were structured upon fraudulent beliefs. Why? Because they failed to include EVERYMAN, white, black, brown, red, and yellow, when they laid down the basic principles in their tenet of good intentions. And, as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I hope you understand this, and will read the books I've mentioned quite a few times over the last few years. That is where the answers are found. Not in a film that's been through multiple generations of reproduction, until it's come out looking like a cartoon. You know, that was the original intention, after all. To create the perfect crime, and get away with it. They can, and do it all the time. They have the unlimited resources to do just that. And, there's really nothing you can do about it now, short of revolution, and all that's needed are a handful of strategically placed neutron devices, or whatever state-of-the-art weapon of mass destruction designed for that specific purpose, to quash any fool-hardy attempts at an up-rising.

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, the single-bullet theory was not created because of James Tague, it was created because in the eyes of the commission the Z-film showed Kennedy and Connally reacting to their shots within 30 frames of each other. Without the Z-film, there would be no single-bullet theory. Without the single-bullet theory, the findings of the WC would have won over the bulk of the population, and Epstein's and Lane's books would have made little impact. In all probability there would be no CT community if it wasn't for the single-bullet theory, and the Z-film, its raison d-etre..

[Kathleen Collins]

"I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald."[/color]

Kathy, the gov. or what you think of as "the gov." had nothing to do with the murder. The real perps are the Rockefellers, Morgans, Pawley's, Sarnoff's, McCloys, Werbell's, Harrimans, Brown Root., etc. and et.al. People like the Dulles' could be considered as their corporate attorneys, to try and simplify this as best I can. The government of the United States is nothing more than a facade for the elites to work behind. All decisions that concern not only this country, but the world. are not made in D.C., per se. That's just for show, or to con the citizens into believing that they have a government that is actually working for them, when in reality the decisions and deals are made on Wall Street, and London, and even Rome. The really big decisions, Kath. Not what you think, or have been led to believe in. All roads lead to New York and London, that is where the REAL capitol is. The capitols of the world, that actually rule and run, the world, or The Global Capitol, in some circles. The P.O.T.U.S. is a puppet, much like the dictators put into power in those Third World countries, the global corporations annex resources from. But, here's the catch, they do it in the name of democracy. They plunder, steal, and pillage other nation states' natural resources, all in the name of democracy, and in the name of the United States, and it's mother ship, the United Kingdom, with absolutely no regard for international law, or The Geneva Accords. Why? Because they answer to no one, pledge allegiance to no one. Why? Because they've set it in stone for themselves since the 1500's, and regardless of whomever may come down the pike, be it Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or JFK. They will never relinquish their hold on the world's resources because they believe they are the only chosen few families allowed to possess that kind of divine right of entitlement. Anyone else coming along with ideas of freedom and democracy for the common man, is eventually liquidated, and the old guard reclaims the treasury. Just like that, in a heartbeat, via a gunshot, or a poisoned dart.

So, you can chase your gov. down til the cows come home and all your doing is wasting your time chasing a myth, or a paper tiger. This country's Declaration and Constitution were structured upon fraudulent beliefs. Why? Because they failed to include EVERYMAN, white, black, brown, red, and yellow, when they laid down the basic principles in their tenet of good intentions. And, as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I hope you understand this, and will read the books I've mentioned quite a few times over the last few years. That is where the answers are found. Not in a film that's been through multiple generations of reproduction, until it's come out looking like a cartoon. You know, that was the original intention, after all. To create the perfect crime, and get away with it. They can, and do it all the time. They have the unlimited resources to do just that. And, there's really nothing you can do about it now, short of revolution, and all that's needed are a handful of strategically placed neutron devices, or whatever state-of-the-art weapon of mass destruction designed for that specific purpose, to quash any fool-hardy attempts at an up-rising.

Thanks for explaining that, Terri. It makes me wonder why I should vote next year.

Kathy

[Terry Mauro]

"I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald."[/color]

Kathy, the gov. or what you think of as "the gov." had nothing to do with the murder. The real perps are the Rockefellers, Morgans, Pawley's, Sarnoff's, McCloys, Werbell's, Harrimans, Brown Root., etc. and et.al. People like the Dulles' could be considered as their corporate attorneys, to try and simplify this as best I can. The government of the United States is nothing more than a facade for the elites to work behind. All decisions that concern not only this country, but the world. are not made in D.C., per se. That's just for show, or to con the citizens into believing that they have a government that is actually working for them, when in reality the decisions and deals are made on Wall Street, and London, and even Rome. The really big decisions, Kath. Not what you think, or have been led to believe in. All roads lead to New York and London, that is where the REAL capitol is. The capitols of the world, that actually rule and run, the world, or The Global Capitol, in some circles. The P.O.T.U.S. is a puppet, much like the dictators put into power in those Third World countries, the global corporations annex resources from. But, here's the catch, they do it in the name of democracy. They plunder, steal, and pillage other nation states' natural resources, all in the name of democracy, and in the name of the United States, and it's mother ship, the United Kingdom, with absolutely no regard for international law, or The Geneva Accords. Why? Because they answer to no one, pledge allegiance to no one. Why? Because they've set it in stone for themselves since the 1500's, and regardless of whomever may come down the pike, be it Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or JFK. They will never relinquish their hold on the world's resources because they believe they are the only chosen few families allowed to possess that kind of divine right of entitlement. Anyone else coming along with ideas of freedom and democracy for the common man, is eventually liquidated, and the old guard reclaims the treasury. Just like that, in a heartbeat, via a gunshot, or a poisoned dart.

So, you can chase your gov. down til the cows come home and all your doing is wasting your time chasing a myth, or a paper tiger. This country's Declaration and Constitution were structured upon fraudulent beliefs. Why? Because they failed to include EVERYMAN, white, black, brown, red, and yellow, when they laid down the basic principles in their tenet of good intentions. And, as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I hope you understand this, and will read the books I've mentioned quite a few times over the last few years. That is where the answers are found. Not in a film that's been through multiple generations of reproduction, until it's come out looking like a cartoon. You know, that was the original intention, after all. To create the perfect crime, and get away with it. They can, and do it all the time. They have the unlimited resources to do just that. And, there's really nothing you can do about it now, short of revolution, and all that's needed are a handful of strategically placed neutron devices, or whatever state-of-the-art weapon of mass destruction designed for that specific purpose, to quash any fool-hardy attempts at an up-rising.

Thanks for explaining that, Terri. It makes me wonder why I should vote next year.

Kathy

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

"Thanks for explaining that, Terri. It makes me wonder why I should vote next year."

It's imperative that you continue to vote in your community, city, county, and state elections, if nothing else. Just bear in mind that the state and national elections are the ones that are most susceptible to manipulation by the Electoral Colleges. It's the least we can do, and most definitely should be made aware of. Remember, your voice has a better chance of being heard, closer to home. That's where many grass-roots efforts take form.

Another thing to keep in mind, and which I came to realize, only too late in the game, is that Third party candidates, like a Ralph Nader, or a Ross Perot, have a way of taking votes away from one candidate, for example, a Democrat, making it easier for the opposition [Republicans] to maintain a foothold in winning the election. It's called "splitting the vote." And, unless a Third party candidate is considered to be a sure shot at garnering the full support of votes from say, the Democratic contingency, and/or a respectable number of votes from a disgruntled enough margin of moderate Republicans, to guarantee a landslide victory over the Republican opposition, then you might as well be shooting yourself in the foot, by voting for a Third party candidate. I was fooled into voting for Ross Perot, twice.

And again, remember that the Electoral College is allowed to be called upon to vote, as many times as needed, until the candidate of the most influential party [monetarily speaking] is eventually seated. This was how the Senate elections for the state of Indiana were allowed to be manipulated in 1982. If I remember correctly, the popular vote was 83 to the opposition's 72, so it was sent back to the Electoral College multiple times until the popular vote was overruled, and the opposition was allowed to take the seat.

I had saved that newspaper article from The Redlands Daily Facts Newpaper, where I had read it sometime in April or May of 1983. The editor was from New York, and had been assigned to the paper for eight years. I believe his name was Green or Greenberg. I used to call him up and thank him for some of the informative articles he would have the brazen nerve to interject in his column, from time to time. Especially since the little town of Redlands, at the time pop. 77,000, was basically a bastion of conservatives, flanked by the S.A.C. March Air Force Base directly south on its border with Riverside, and the M.A.C. Norton Air Force Base, smack dab in the middle of the town, itself. Unfortunately, the Reynold's Newspaper Syndicate ended up reassigning him to Alaska, or some wilderness place similar to it, later in 1983. Shades of Operation Mockingbird, at work, perhaps?

It's unfortunate, but as the saying in the business world goes, "Money talks, bullxxxx walks." They need to erect a plaque engraved with those words and hang it on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Charles Black]

Duplicate post.

Ron

What I meant by explaining it to the baser masses, would involve nothing technical, as I wouldn't understand it either. What I was referring to was to take a film, any film, and demonstrate what the excision of frames does to both the picture and the timing, and how what you think that you saw, has been altered. Frames can be removed, re-entered at another time, reversed etc.

The argument has never been that this film could not be altered . The argument is that it cannot be altered to such a degree that the alteration is undetectable. If this argument is wrong, and it apparently is, it would be obviously undetected.

I am certain that aspects of this film are not a correct depiction. So are dozens of Dealey Plaza witnesses and Parkland Hospital staff members.

Regardless of the ridiculous claim that "It can't be done".....it very obviously was done.....unless of course you care to believe that all eyewitnesses on the afternoon of 11/22/63, are wrong, blind, or for some reason lying.

Regardless of arguments meant to diminish the credibility of both Parkland and Dealey Plaza witnesses, I consider them at least "as capable of reporting observed history" as have millions of eyewitnesses over a period of thousands of years of recorded history.

The real "HOAX" hs been to "somehow" convince "some" people, that everything is incorrect except for what the film depicts ! This demands total gullibility in what are believed to be quite intelligent people.

Lets get serious ! The reports of the eyewitness historians of the Napoleonic Wars is not being contested. Are humans now believed to be passing thru some sort of "reverse evolution" and are now no longer capable of seeing and recording actions and reactions ?

I find it amazing what some very bright people have been manipulated to believe. Do you believe that the Dealey and Parkland eyewitnesses were all wrong on the afternoon of 11/22/63 ?

If they were not wrong, the film has most definitely been altered. This ain't Rocket Science either !

I have in these later years become very wary of "some alledged experts". I do not feel that common sense and one's basic instinct should necessarily be set aside simply because someone states that they are expert. Who knows what MOTIVATES some experts. Are EXPERTS unable to lie as are we other mere mortals? Can testimony not be bought or threatened?

The more that I consider this evidence, the more that I am convinced that I am correct.

It "IS" what makes most sense !

Charlie Black

[Tim Carroll]

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

I could find in the above verbiage not "ONE single" question, answered or not, other than the final sentence: "How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers?" A simple question is neither compound nor run-on. What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner?

Tim

[Charles Black]

Hello Tim

You could have at least thanked me for providng you the opportunity of disecting my post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding my "verbiage".

Other than yourself, I don't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been my "inferred" question!

Since you asked (quote) "What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner ? ", I will attempt to explain to you, providing I have the "abilities", the question which if too "compound and run on" for your comprehension, that I was attempting to infer and relay.

My question is a little complicated, so in the hope that you will be able to absorb its elusiveness, I will attempt to break it down into a series of simple statements and questions.

On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, eyewitnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza made statements regarding what they observed during the shooting sequence. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, members of the Parkland Hospital trauma team which attended JFK, gave statements regarding the wounds which they observed at close range for approximately 30 minutes. I personally feel that the Parkland testimony would probably be accepted as "expert" as any that could have been given. The bullet strikes which the Dealey Plaza eye witnesses reported on that afternoon, are considered by most who have studied this event, to generally coincide with the wounds to the President, as described by the Parkland Team.

In contrast to the statements given by these two separate sets of witnesses to the shooting of and the wounds incurred by JFK, there was an 8mm Kodacolor II home movie said to have been taken by a Dallas business man named Abraham Zapruder. Immediately after this film was taken, it came into the temporary posession and complete control of U.S. Govenment agencies.

This film became exposed to the world public appx. thirteen years later. The compound question which I ask is "Why Does This Zapruder Film Depict Something Which Does Not Correspond With The Testimonies Given On The Afternoon Of 11/22/63, By Both The Dealey Plaza Witnesses, And What Must Be Considered Expert Testimony, By The Parkland Trauma Staff?"

I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession.

My "compound question" therefore is which depiction of these events do the forum members consider more reliable.....and WHY? Do forum members believe this Zapruder film, and the timing of events and the reactions of JFK which it represents, to be more believable than the witness testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

Not to further compound or confound the question, but to further "infer" something nefarious....why do some of the photographs, purported to have been taken "during" the Bethesda autopsy, differ from the wounds described by the two previously mentioned sets of witnesses ?

I hope this clarifies to Tim and others who may not have understood the complications of my original post, what my unanswerable compound question was !

I would also like to ask Tim, if he feels that his prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?

Charlie Black

[Terry Mauro]

Hello Tim

You could have at least thanked me for providng you the opportunity of disecting my post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding my "verbiage".

Other than yourself, I don't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been my "inferred" question!

Since you asked (quote) "What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner ? ", I will attempt to explain to you, providing I have the "abilities", the question which if too "compound and run on" for your comprehension, that I was attempting to infer and relay.

My question is a little complicated, so in the hope that you will be able to absorb its elusiveness, I will attempt to break it down into a series of simple statements and questions.

On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, eyewitnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza made statements regarding what they observed during the shooting sequence. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, members of the Parkland Hospital trauma team which attended JFK, gave statements regarding the wounds which they observed at close range for approximately 30 minutes. I personally feel that the Parkland testimony would probably be accepted as "expert" as any that could have been given. The bullet strikes which the Dealey Plaza eye witnesses reported on that afternoon, are considered by most who have studied this event, to generally coincide with the wounds to the President, as described by the Parkland Team.

In contrast to the statements given by these two separate sets of witnesses to the shooting of and the wounds incurred by JFK, there was an 8mm Kodacolor II home movie said to have been taken by a Dallas business man named Abraham Zapruder. Immediately after this film was taken, it came into the temporary posession and complete control of U.S. Govenment agencies.

This film became exposed to the world public appx. thirteen years later. The compound question which I ask is "Why Does This Zapruder Film Depict Something Which Does Not Correspond With The Testimonies Given On The Afternoon Of 11/22/63, By Both The Dealey Plaza Witnesses, And What Must Be Considered Expert Testimony, By The Parkland Trauma Staff?"

I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession.

My "compound question" therefore is which depiction of these events do the forum members consider more reliable.....and WHY? Do forum members believe this Zapruder film, and the timing of events and the reactions of JFK which it represents, to be more believable than the witness testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

Not to further compound or confound the question, but to further "infer" something nefarious....why do some of the photographs, purported to have been taken "during" the Bethesda autopsy, differ from the wounds described by the two previously mentioned sets of witnesses ?

I hope this clarifies to Tim and others who may not have understood the complications of my original post, what my unanswerable compound question was !

I would also like to ask Tim, if he feels that his prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?

Charlie Black

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

"I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession."

I thought this topic had been concluded to a fair degree, that immediate, on-site, first-hand, eye-witnessed testimony was far more reliable and henceforth, more credible than later testimony which may be subjectively influenced and susceptible to embellishment. Therefore, rendering it inconsistent as well as, inconclusive, as far as admissible evidence is concerned.

I was also under the impression that the Zapruder cartoon was nothing more than a convenient monkey-wrench, thrown into the mix, as a means of derailing any plausible investigation into the case, due to the myriad of possible conjectures it could give rise to.

This would also serve the purpose of further stalling any viable, let alone credible conclusions as to what actually happened by conveniently being used as a ploy to try and discredit any eye witness testimony. Everyone has heard the statement that, "The camera never lies." Or, the one claiming how, "Every picture tells a story." Zapruder was no innocent by-stander, either. IMHO.

But, I thought this was already common knowledge, and for some time, now?

[Charles Black]

Hello Terry

I feel that your statement that I shall quote, describes the situation as succinctly as I have ever heard it expressed !

" This would also serve the purpose of further stalling any viable, let alone credible conclusions as to what actually happened by conveniently being used as a ploy to try and discredit any eye witness testimony." "....I thought this was common knowledge, and for some time, now".

THEY cannot release the Zapruder "Religion" because they know that "Humpty Dumpty will have a great fall, and all of the King's......will not put Humpty together again" !

I call it the Zapruder "Religion" as it is apparently based on faith alone !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

[Pat Speer]

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.

[Tim Carroll]

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

I could find in the above verbiage not "ONE single" question, answered or not, other than the final sentence: "How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers?" A simple question is neither compound nor run-on. What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner?

Tim

Hello Tim

You could have at least thanked me for providng you the opportunity of disecting my post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding my "verbiage".

Other than yourself, I don't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been my "inferred" question!

Since you asked (quote) "What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner ? ", I will attempt to explain to you, providing I have the "abilities", the question which if too "compound and run on" for your comprehension, that I was attempting to infer and relay.

My question is a little complicated, so in the hope that you will be able to absorb its elusiveness, I will attempt to break it down into a series of simple statements and questions.

On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, eyewitnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza made statements regarding what they observed during the shooting sequence. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, members of the Parkland Hospital trauma team which attended JFK, gave statements regarding the wounds which they observed at close range for approximately 30 minutes. I personally feel that the Parkland testimony would probably be accepted as "expert" as any that could have been given. The bullet strikes which the Dealey Plaza eye witnesses reported on that afternoon, are considered by most who have studied this event, to generally coincide with the wounds to the President, as described by the Parkland Team.

In contrast to the statements given by these two separate sets of witnesses to the shooting of and the wounds incurred by JFK, there was an 8mm Kodacolor II home movie said to have been taken by a Dallas business man named Abraham Zapruder. Immediately after this film was taken, it came into the temporary posession and complete control of U.S. Govenment agencies.

This film became exposed to the world public appx. thirteen years later. The compound question which I ask is "Why Does This Zapruder Film Depict Something Which Does Not Correspond With The Testimonies Given On The Afternoon Of 11/22/63, By Both The Dealey Plaza Witnesses, And What Must Be Considered Expert Testimony, By The Parkland Trauma Staff?"

I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession.

My "compound question" therefore is which depiction of these events do the forum members consider more reliable.....and WHY? Do forum members believe this Zapruder film, and the timing of events and the reactions of JFK which it represents, to be more believable than the witness testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

Not to further compound or confound the question, but to further "infer" something nefarious....why do some of the photographs, purported to have been taken "during" the Bethesda autopsy, differ from the wounds described by the two previously mentioned sets of witnesses ?

I hope this clarifies to Tim and others who may not have understood the complications of my original post, what my unanswerable compound question was !

I would also like to ask Tim, if he feels that his prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?

Charlie Black

While I consider it absurd that I should "have at least thanked [Charles] for providing [me] the opportunity of disecting [his] post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding [his] "verbiage," I certainly will address the assertion that other than myself, Charles doesn't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been [emphasis added]his "inferred" question when I find a great many of the non-film alterationists absent. Charles asserted that he "will attempt to explain ... the question which if too "compound and run on" he was in fact attempting to infer and relay. A "simple" question (Charles' word, not mine) is not compound and doesn't assume a particular inference by a reader. Charles proceeded to refer to his "compound question," thereby admitting that it wasn't "ONE" question at all. He seems to be implying that the witnesses were undermined by manufactured evidence, which might well be true, but it is far from proven, and I have long been disturbed by the numbers of witnesses who reported hearing only three shots. As to the final question of whether or not I consider that my "prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?: It has very little to do with the research and analysis of this assassination, but plenty to do with refining the nature of historical discourse. Conversely, unfounded assumptions have done a great deal to harm the research and analysis of this assassination. Charles's entire thread was based on "ONE simple question" which is now admitted to be a "compound question" which is "complicated" and more of an assumed inference than a question at all. Charles can feel free to thank me for this lesson in historical discourse and manners.

Tim