JFK First Witness Accounts With The Zapruder Film Faking and Other Photo's

Originally posted by BigTrain
Mayet, Heres my analysis, and it goes like this.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of DIFFERENT accounts of events that happened that day. All the witnesses seem to have different stories.

I don't think you read my thread properly, especially in the part where it gave the number of witness approximately who were close to the scene. The numbers of witnesses in Dealey Plaza itself close up did not number the hundreds let alone thousands at all. First witness account statements of witnesses other than police and secret service who saw the assassination clearly would be lucky to reach 20 or 30 people.

I also pointed out the valuable assassination eyewitnesses who were NOT called to the Warren Commisison, including some of the important ones who did sign first accounts affidavits on the day.

I pointed out the areas witness statements corroborated each other. The witnesses didn't all have different stories at all. There were quite a few common themes in the few first statements.

In fact as already said there were hardly any stories for the first witness acounts and the first accounts is what this thread is about.


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Mayet]

Mayet...once again...what are you trying to show with your blowups of some of the frames....i.e. the one that Valhall drew a green line around? Seems like one could make up anything they want about what those things might be. But, I'd like to know what you think they are!

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Mayet...once again...what are you trying to show with your blowups of some of the frames....i.e. the one that Valhall drew a green line around? Seems like one could make up anything they want about what those things might be. But, I'd like to know what you think they are!

and once again I will redirect you to the original post and the first witness accounts which you have ridiculed as being on mushrooms...We are talking what the first account witnesses, albeit drugged ones as you say, are seeing



Before I go and curl up in my nice warm bed with a book

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will leave you with this thread. As you see from the thread above you do not speak for everyone. Actually there has been many books covering these very points discussed.

The thread above brings up other points we have not covered here, we are dealing with the first accounts, but the thread I gave to you for your own bedtime reading shows other inconsistencies with the films that readers may be interested in.




[edit on 20-1-2006 by Mayet]

and once again I will redirect you to the original post and the first witness accounts which you have ridiculed as being on mushrooms...We are talking what the first account witnesses, albeit drugged ones as you say, are seeing

Once again, you don't answer my question. This is pointless and sad.

I read your first post or book. I read what the witnesses say they think they saw. But YOU posted the pictures not the witnesses so AGAIN...what are YOU saying is in the pictures? You blew up the frames and you drew line around them to point out to us something...what is the damn something?

In one pic I see jackie's lapel..in another I see JFK's elbow......what are YOU seeing?? Is that any clearer? Are you going to answer or just dance around again?

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

I think excita needs to reread the thread over again slowly and cover the parts about dom/dod .
you might wanna cover the part about an elusive clue that could be in the magic box which you keep demanding an answer for since you are following the same line that it was given back then if it is what i think it is

and rememeber this we may never know the whole story and what really happened that day in texas but if we stop asking remember what history is other than his story

Exciteable Boy so positive Kennedy cant stand gets burned with the Hawaii pics and then gets exciteable..thats a classic.Anyways what your seeing there is my perspective,opinion if you will of areas i believe to be edited.How is it that hard to figure out,if everything looks proper to you your opinion is noted.


Wow Val your opinion of me has already raised to that of the mars dude..things are looking up.The way you post a Zapruder frame and then one of a Mario cartoon shows me your starting to catch on.



You would be way off your game if you allowed someone to show their perspective without the classic ridicule theme,That all it is...a perspective... one that your welcome to prove wrong but do you need ridicule to do it.I expected it quite awhile ago actually im surprised it's only gotten me the Mars guy jab.I know in time you will get better at it so keep looking for crazy guy links and keep me laughing because it's expected and you wouldnt be doing your job if you dont hit harder than that.


If there remains an open mind out there and i know there is,this is my doodling of my perspective of the particuliar frame.I think everyone is entitled to post their opinions and if you want to call me the Mars dude thats kewl,it is in fact just my perspective and explains at least to me some of the confusion i see in the Zapruder frames.


Again the main thing i want understood is that im not telling anyone to take my word on anything or believe my doodles,ive stated in every thread ive posted that people get the frames and the pictures and study them for themselves.It's my opinion that your eyes will start to adjust and will then see plentyof edits for yourself.If you dont you be sure to come back and help Val find more Mars guy links.

My perspective here is of an overlap of the limo with the larger vehicle and people moving in the direction of the right side of the frame,The smaller people in the overlaped limo heading in the direction of the left side of the frame.




Ive doodled for your enjoyment where my perspective of the overlapped limo heading to the left would approx be. Enlarge and look undoodled as well and take some time with it.To me its an overlap but you decide for yourself.





I hope you will take the time to at least try and see my perspective although i realize thats hard for some.Please let all ridicule and discrediting fall directly on me as it is my perspective and i should be persecuted accordingly.

Keep in mind more people get it everyday,ridiculed or not.All anyone needs to see is one thing edited or altered in any way and the whole film is suspect.If you cant figure out why the altering of evidence is important than theres alot of ridicule to go around.


Earth once changed from flat to round... when it did those who continued to hold the belief that the Earth was flat were the ones to be ridiculed.Everyday new technology comes out so one day we will know but for now all those that make a living on the JFK buisness,those that want everything to remain basically the same because it lines the pockets.JFK is a huge buisness and those running it dont want a clearer picture ,the confusion makes millions and ridicule is the least that will be done to keep things exactly as they have been for 40 odd years.This boat isnt gonna sail forever and the flat edges of yesterday get rounder by the day.

Jim,

You're welcome! And by the way, that guys been at it for over 10 years now. He's most likely considered a Master Doodler. He may even be on the seminar circuit now!

Dissecting these old, grainy images to the point they simply become Rorschach tests where you see anything in them you want to see doesn't do anything to help anyone deny ignorance.

Dissecting these old, grainy images to the point they simply become Rorschach tests where you see anything in them you want to see doesn't do anything to help anyone deny ignorance.

Thank you. We're talking about a Super 8 film here that is 42 years old. I do believe there was probably some monkeying around done with it. But some stuff people are speculating is just plain ridiculous. And the last poster to try and point out some nonsense (sorry I forget your name)....what you have pointed out is just that...nonsense. The things you have drawn around are nothing but figments of your imagination!

Yes, you do seem to ridicule everyone excitable boy. Actually everything is ridiculous to you, even when things are pointed out to you
you say the witnesses first accounts are ridiculous, and that they were on mushrooms, you said that the president standing up is ridiculous even though we showed you photos to say it was standard practise.

You say our ideas are ridiculous and you rudely sidetrack and demand I answer you questions on things i have not even stated. You say the images are ridiculous, even though we have shown that there is others who also believe the film is altered and then you presume to speak for everyone when you say everyone thinks the ideas are ridiculous. You huff and puff and tell us how bored your getting and how tired you are of it all.

Excitable Boy
This is nonsense and I'm bored and tired of it.....

Very interesting behaviour there.

DJohnso
Dissecting these old, grainy images to the point they simply become Rorschach tests where you see anything in them you want to see doesn't do anything to help anyone deny ignorance.

Once again DJ this thread, which has been wonderfully sidetracked is about the first witness accounts not matchng up to the film in question and others. Dissecting grainy images that are a lie would in fact be denying ignorance in it's highest form. We are not saying oh look at this sock puppet here, its attacking JFK and his hands are in that most impossible position to ward it off. What we are pointing out is inconsistencies that show the film does not shape up to be the accurate chain of evidence it has been touted as being for over 40 years.

I do believe that in Maynardsthirdeye thread on the zapruder faking, he pointed out impossible leg positions on one of the witnesses.

And unfortunately, the Zapruder film is thought of as the bible of the assassination. This is the way it happened because Zapruder said it so. If the film is fake.... then it has every right to be dissected with a fine tooth comb, because that film is what the government and others are using as a true and honest account of what happened that day. It has been entered into testimony in the Warren Commission, whereas witnesses who were there at the scene were not called, it has entered into testimony at court cases and then at other investigations of the assassination like the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the HSCA.

If the film is edited in any way shape or form, then history has been rewritten to suit. If the film is fake then it shows we are dealing with high treason instead of a simple assassination by "a silly little communist"



[edit on 20-1-2006 by Mayet]

If the film is edited in any way shape or form, then history has been rewritten to suit. If the film is fake then it shows we are dealing with high treason instead of a simple assassination by "a silly little communist"

You see Mayet...you don't need to go to so much trouble to prove that there was treason afoot. Our own government killed Kennedy. No kidding. What we don't need is peopel trying to dissect the film and find ghost images of nonesense like Jackie's lapel somehow being something else or JFK's elbow. We KNOW there's a conspiracy. We KNOW it wasn't a lone gunman as you call the "silly little communist." We KNOW all this. Finding figments of your and others imaginations on the Zaprueder film does not make it any more believable. If anything, what you are doing is making it look like you are grabbing at straws...when you don't have to....there is PLENTY of other evidence of the conspiracy....

This supposed evidence of tampering with the Z film doesn't change anything. In fact your argument just looks plain silly. How about some hard facts instead of ghost images and sock puppets?

Oh and you said "if the film is fake".....yeah, the WHOLE film is fake.

My perspective here is of an overlap of the limo with the larger vehicle and people moving in the direction of the right side of the frame,The smaller people in the overlaped limo heading in the direction of the left side of the frame.

Jimstadamus....this is funny.

You have decided that there's little people facing the opposite direction in the film, when in fact what you have traced are:

1. A reflection off the backseat
2. Jackie's lapel
3. Jackie's arm
4. Frame of the car that holds the top on
5. Front passenger's head
6. Hand of spectator overlapping the door handles

Brilliant. My God. The mystery of who killed JFK is finally solved. It's little ghosts that are in the limo. They are in the 4th dimension, thus hard to make out unless you closely examine that 42 year old super 8 movie. My God what a breakthrough. I think you should get a Nobel for this!

Mayet
If the film is edited in any way shape or form, then history has been rewritten to suit. If the film is fake then it shows we are dealing with high treason instead of a simple assassination by "a silly little communist"

We KNOW it wasn't a lone gunman as you call the "silly little communist." We KNOW all this.

Actually it was Jackie Kennedy who called Oswald a "silly litle communist" my mistake I thought you would have known that, it has been well quoted

As far as sock puppets are concerned, take that one up with Valhall, the sock puppet idea was her getting her feet wet.

For something that bores you and you find so ridculous, it sure has captured your attention and time. I am glad it has stimulated so much interest.

Back to the topic at hand, evidence was presented in this topic in the form of first witness accounts that you have conveniently sidetracked from and of course called ridiculous. Once again I direct you back to the first post. The witness statements and the effect and bearing they have on not just the films and photos, but the whole case.






[edit on 20-1-2006 by Mayet]

Originally posted by iamgumby
I think excita needs to reread the thread over again slowly and cover the parts about dom/dod .

External Source
home.datawest.net...
Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams.

External Source
home.datawest.net...
14 Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crimeat hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
17 Change the subject. find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues
8. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents

The whole 25 are of use to people reading this thread. Also useful to anyone visitng a conspiracy board is the 8 traits of a disinfo artist.
taken from Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

The witness statements and the effect and bearing they have on not just the films and photos, but the whole case

They have no bearing on anything. The president wasn't standing. There was no secret service man hiding in the limo with a machine gun, there are no little ghosts in the limo, the driver didn't shoot JFK, etc. etc. etc.

Yes there's a HUGE conspiracy. Our government and the mafia were involved. What does dissecting this film to the point of findinng imaginery nonsense do to help find further proof of a conspiracy. THERE IS A CONSPIRACY. NO KIDDING! This whole thread is useless dribble.

I think you should get a Nobel for this!

Excite boy...after your very first post in this thread you showed everybody exactly how much you know...if theres a prize being handed out..trust me..your in the running.

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
This whole thread is useless dribble.

External Source
simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
Example: 'This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap?

home.datawest.net...

I think that sums it up. The behaviour here in ths thread and other threads where people have put forward theories, particularly on subjects as touchy as JFK can certainly be looked at in more than one light...


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Mayet]

Howdy folks...

I'm not sure what you are seeing in the pics you posted, can you elaborate on what you have high lighted...

But you're right on eye witness accounts, they can be exagurated, like JFK stood up and waved at people, no film I've seen shows this...

I'm curious about something, if someone edited this film how did they do it, and in your opinion when did they do it ?

On your frame z243, it seems a bit different from mine ( I got mine from the same source you got yours BTW )



I don't see those artifacts in mine...

What software did you use to enlarge this frame, and what filters did you use ?

Looks to me like you over compensated on the Contrast, and/or Gamma correction...

Oh...BTW...

Excitable_Boy, the Zapruder film was a 8mm film, Super 8 didn't come out untill I think '65

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Jedi_Master]

Excitable_Boy, the Zapruder film was a 8mm film, Super 8 didn't come out untill I think '65

Thanks for the lesson!

Jedi...there is nothing to see in the film, that's why you can't see it. You have to take mushrooms first!

Does anybody else find it weird that Zapruder somehow never flinched during the assasination of the president. throughout the shooting, screaming and panic, he remains fixed on JFK. I dont know about you, but I would rather see whats happening with my own eyes and to see what the heck was going on than looking through some grainy film. This has always puzzled me.

Train