My ONE Simple Unanswered Question !

[Pat Speer]

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).

The "Jackie closed the wound" theory doesn't hold, Ron. Dr. Clark in Dallas and Dr. Humes in Bethesda both stated that there was an actual absence of scalp and skull at the large defect. One can see skull blown from the top of the skull in the Z film, just where Newman and Zapruder described the wound on television. There's no way Clark and the others could have missed this wound. Dr. Fisher of the Clark Panel and Dr. Spitz of the HSCA FPP wrote a book together in which they stated outright that missing scalp and skull is indicative of entrance. The large defect was an entrance... for a bullet fired from above and behind.

[Terry Mauro]

"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

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

"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:"

Now that you mention it, I guess I probably share a lot more views on this with Charles Black than I previously thought, which is most likely the reason why I answered. Though, I certainly did not intend to answer FOR him. Sorry about that.

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

Sorry, I stand corrected. I must have gotten my "time-line" reversed in the heat of discussion.

"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."

"...a dishonest promotion of a Secret Government." I find what it being passed off to the American people and the world, in this day and age, to be NO GOVERNMENT, at all. Instead, I find this sham being paraded and masqueraded as a democracy, a mendacious form of brain-washing, the culmination of which has been allowed to operate as an autocratic plutocracy since it's first inception. And, if that isn't evidence of compliance with a Secret Government, then I don't know what else is.

[Charles Black]

Hello Tim

Sorry to find out that you have been ill. I sincerely wish you the best.

When I speak of the "certainty of who dun it", I didn't mean to imply that they were ALL necesarily

cowboys OR indians. Just as I did not mean to imply that there were not very many media interests other than those of Luce, which have and continue to aid the "cover up". The "who dun it" that I refer to, perhaps too casually, is "The Power" factions, whether they be media, industrialist, banking, oil interests, etc.

In the many specifics involved in the coup d' etat,

there were areas in which the interests of both the Cowboys and Indians were mutually served.

I don't feel that "oil" had necessarily more to gain than "banking" which had more to gain than munitions manufacturers, and so forth. All of these interests had a unifying purpose. The purpose being that they would all "gain" considerably with the removal of JFK.....particularly when they understood the "WHO" and the "WHAT" that was guaranteed to immediately follow.

Though the specific interests of these power bases may have varied, they were united, by their worship of money and power.

As I mentioned in another thread, the purpose of my interest in this case is not to jail a group of octogenarians, but for the people of the U.S. and the world to realize what actually occurred had more to do with seizing the control of power, BY THE FEW, and the very bold statement which this siezure has signified. This cabal (for lack of a better word) is what has, and has had, control of this country.

I feel that it knocks down the fences in territories of both Cowboys and Indians for the purpose of mutual greed and gain.

I feel that too often we attempt to embrace specifics, rather than seeing how, in the completed jig saw puzzle, that all of the pieces support each other and are in many ways interdependent.

Again, I am very sorry to hear of your illness and I wish you the best. When we finally look at the bottom line, our interests are no doubt supportive of each other.

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

[Tim Carroll]

Hello Tim

Sorry to find out that you have been ill. I sincerely wish you the best.

Thanks Charles. I will do my best to maintain a semblence of a sense of humor here. The reason I chose this thread was the inticing language of "ONE simple unanswered question." But the thing about the Kennedy assassination is that it falls into the more you know, the more you know you don't know category. I now take the title of Anthony Summers' book, Not In Your Lifetime, very personally.

When I speak of the "certainty of who dun it", I didn't mean to imply that they were ALL necesarily

cowboys OR indians. Just as I did not mean to imply that there were not very many media interests other than those of Luce, which have and continue to aid the "cover up". The "who dun it" that I refer to, perhaps too casually, is "The Power" factions, whether they be media, industrialist, banking, oil interests, etc. In the many specifics involved in the coup d'etat, there were areas in which the interests of both the Cowboys and Indians were mutually served.

While having been guided by Carl Oglesby's The Yankee And Cowboy War for over three decades, I believe that Carl might also agree that there was a mutuality of interests served by killing Kennedy. While he was more Eastern Establishment, he was still only one generation away from The Irish Need Not Apply era.

As Carl describes it, the Senate hearings rigged against Howard Hughes (the persona of the military industrial complex) by the corporatist monopolists, well portrayed in the movie The Aviator, was the opening salvo in the struggle between the Yankees and Cowboys. Of course, Hughes' wealth was highly liquid, as was the wealth of the others of the new breed of wildcatters such as H. L. Hunt. This is an important contrast when one follows the money, especially as it was being doled out to the anti-Castro mercenaries who felt so betrayed by JFK. On the other hand, we have the specific example of Clare Boothe Luce with a heavy finger in that pie. During their last lunch with JFK, the Luces stormed out.

Though the specific interests of these power bases may have varied, they were united, by their worship of money and power.

When Kennedy made a Secret Deal to remove our missiles from Russia's border to resolve the Missile Crisis, he committed what many mainstream Americans would have at the time considered treason. An agreement by Yankees and Cowboys that Kennedy was unfit to wield the nuclear deterrent (a theory well-presented by Shanet Clark), either because of his drug-taking, his risk-taking that last year with an East German spy, or his actual fear of using the nuclear arsenal, would have been met by the military with an eager, can-do plan to fix the problem.

Tim Carroll

[Charles Black]

Hello Tim and ALL

The one area in which we all might agree is that many, of whom I call the middle mangement, of this "Coup", did not consider themselves treasonous or assassins. To the contrary, I feel that many of these people deeply felt this ugly job HAD to be carried out, because they felt that JFK's policies involving the Soviet Bloc and Communism in general,

was putting both the U.S. and the entire world at the mercy of what they deeply believed to be a possible Armeggedon, if their seemingly continous growth and power were not halted.

They were falling for the same type of bait that LBJ so successfully used when he was convincing both Earl Warren and Senator Russell to participate on the Warren Comission. It was an "appeal to patriotism"! It was an appeal to curb the growth of Communist power, before they became "powerful enough" to risk an attack upon the free world.

Kennedy was seen to be, and in fact was, circumventing a portion of the government and its agencies, which had not gone unnoticed, and may have easily been considered by some, to be a genuine threat to National Security.

These persons were not all self seekers who conspired for power, but some were those "who all breathed the same air", and wanted the same things for their children, as do the rest of us !

I personally feel that this is the major factor which allowed for the so far successful cover up.

These people believed that they held the same self interest and love for their country as do most of us.

Perhaps this is proof that "con men CAN be conned"!

Charlie Black