JFK new video proof?

reply to post by bknapple32


apple.....there is a possible reason for the mis-understanding.

If you've travelled to great Britain or Europe, you may have noticed that it common to designate the street level as the "Ground Floor", and then the one above that as the 'First" floor. As opposed to America, where we call the street level the 'First' floor.

So, hence a confusion may set in, while posting on a blog.

adding.....isn't it funny how there is never a 'thirteenth' floor in American buildings? How silly is that? Same thing with airliners....no 13th row.

Doing youtube searches on this subject makes it so obvious that there was no lone shooter.

Man you gotta love technology. Now if we can just advance far enough to where we can manipuilate time and go back as some type of spirt, like celestrial projection and watch what really happened.

I bet the first person to do that whould have many angry people at him. Government, Mafia, Politicians etc.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Could make sense with that ground floor argument. So I apologize to the A.P for that possible misunderstanding. Still doesnt take away from the fact that any person who put 5 minutes worth of research, or heck even watched Oliver Stone's movie debacle would know what floor Oswald was supposedly on.

Yea, the 13th floor thing I think is funny.

However, Ive been the unfortunate person who sat on a 13th row for Southwest Airlines, so there is at least one airliner who has a 13th row.

at 1:07 into the 1:15 of the video it looks like there is a silver projectile going from right to left as if it went through the head or a second shot that missed. saw the video but the shining thing is traveling so fast and shining it can only be seen at 1:07 follow the angel of the head in the grass midway up. did any one metal-detect the area for fragments or a bullet

reply to post by cmaracing


No offense, but this is the kind of message to which I'm referring as being unclear and confusing. We do not know to which post it replies, to which video or what it's talking about.

Why not quote the message using the 'quote' button and give us a fighting chance of understanding? Why not do a screen shot of the video and prove a visual and circle the supposed 'shining thing'?

I'd think a bullet traveling at >2000fps would not show up on a video taken with Zapruder's Bell&Howell Zoomatic camera running around 18fps.




[edit on 25-6-2008 by Badge01]

first off the video on the post. second stay on topic and did you check out the video on this post and look at the time of 1:07

reply to post by cmaracing


On topic? I posted about the topic, my friend.

I'd think a bullet traveling at >2000fps would not show up on a video taken with Zapruder's Bell&Howell Zoomatic camera running around 18fps.

OK, found the frame to which you may be referring. That 'shiny thing' is a piece of debris on the grass and is clearly visible from Z313 to Z335 as a stationary and non-blurred object in many frames. Look at the original Costella combined edit slides.

Are you suggesting it's a projectile? That's nonsense.

HTH.


[edit on 25-6-2008 by Badge01]

i saw Costella combined edit slides and i see the rock or whatever it is im in refrence to the begining 1:07 there is a white object just after the last person in the background and at the same time as the shot hits the head very fast and not the rock on the ground. at the begining of 1:07 i see the white rock on the floor and it travels the distance of the car as it moves this thing is travling frome right to left I could be wrong.

reply to post by cmaracing


Please post the Costella combined edit slide and circle the object to which you are referring. You might have to crop the slide for your selection to show up.

You can use tinypic.com to post the file and link it here.

Almost anything you can resolve in an individual slide frame is going to be an artifact or an object on the ground. A projectile will not resolve at 18-24fps. However, it is important to keep looking as things show up which we did not notice in previous viewings.

For an interesting look at such things, try to find a copy of 'Murder in Dealey Plaza' edited by James Fetzer. My local library has a copy, so it's not hard to find, even though it was published in 2000.

The book is an anthology with many different authors, and is extremely interesting and packed with information much of it not known previously.

Thanks.

Here is another anomaly in the Z-film, suggesting it has been altered.



Note in Z-302 that the Limo is in sharp focus, but the background is blurry. This is indicative that the photographer is tracking the limo. In a video of moving objects, you can't have -both- the background and the foreground moving object in sharp focus at the same time.

However, notice in Z-303, both the limo (see yellow arrow added to show the sharpness of the sunlight reflections on the limo crossbar) and the background (note the yellow arrow added to show the sharpness of the woman's face) is in -very- sharp focus, suggesting an image was altered and composited.

When noted motion picture technical expert Roderick Ryan was asked to explain this anomaly, he said: ('Murder in Dealey Plaza', pg 9-10)

"The limo is moving in (Z-)302 and standing still in (Z-)303"

Of course this is impossible.

This goes to show that there are still things to be found in a study of the Z-film. Even if it may end up proving altering, it's evidence of conspiracy, here, within the gub-mint, which took charge of the film processing.


[edit on 25-6-2008 by Badge01]

To Believers and Debunkers re:JFK....

The problem that we are seeing in researching the assassination these days is a sharp split into two camps: Those who believe Oswald Was A Patsy and those who believe If Oswald Did Any Shooting There is no conspiracy.

It doesn't matter if the 6th floor window was open. This does not mean that Oswald had no part in a conspiracy.

I personally believe there was more than one shooter. There are too many inconsistencies in eyewitness reports per the autopsies and hospital staff, in my belief, to maintain otherwise.

HOWEVER.
Let us say for a moment that Oswald and Oswald alone was responsible for the murder of JFK... This. Does. Not. Rule. Out. A. Conspiracy.
I am waiting for the day when someone actually assembles the myriad of research done by debunkers and truthseekers about Oswald's short but effingly mysterious life. And I hope it's called "The One Of Conspiracy" (but it will most likely be titled something stupidly "shocking."

If Oswald had the connections he had (which he did), and if Oswald had the attention of the intelligence establishment he had (which he did) then it matters not one whit, jolt or tigger if he did all the shooting. A simple game of connect-the-dots in a real, determined fashion would have been enough to prove a conspiracy...which is why he was killed.

Remember, we're only now in 2008 getting SERIOUS research about world war 2 and all the ghastly horrors committed by both Axis and Allies. Serious research and mainstream acceptance regarding the JFK assassination probably won't come around til 2014.

The first step is to provea conspiracy; not have a committee issue a statement of "probable conspiracy."
From there we can get into the nitty gritty. We can get into the ballistics. We can get into the reliable witnesses and evidence that point towards a second gunman or a third gunman or even a fourth or fifth.
But none of those brilliant nuggets comes to broad daylight until we take the one obvious suspect (Oswald) and love him or hate him, tear into him with all the prowess of Perry Mason.


The one thing we never bring up however, is the ridiculous Bill Cooper dogcrap about the driver shooting JFK over the head of Governor Connally. Really. I'd sooner believe there's a soul-catcher in Springer's pants.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

 

I love when people reply anonymously. They cant even be big or man enough to actually show their face when they try and trash a thread.

Well then, since I'm a member, I'll be happy to step in.

Tell me to do my homework? Sorry bud. But the window is only shown for about a second in the video, probably why you were too lazy to see the window shut in the first place. If you PAUSE the video, you see what we are talking about.

Done. As you can see, the 6th floor corner window is open.




Here's a close-up from the video:




Here's a close-up from a still taken that day. The two guys in the windows are on 5th floor. Above them is Oswald's window and you see the corner of the box he used as a gun rest.




There are points aplenty to debate about the Kennedy assassination. But whether the 6th floor window was open or closed is, I'm afraid, not one of them.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Well, jeez... I myself stand corrected on that one. It does appear to me that the window in question is after all.. open. Thanks for bringing a fresh set of eyes to this, I know mine are a' fried after spending all day wasting away looking at videos of JFK films. Good job!





T-

[I'm not being sarcastic either]


[edit on 26-6-2008 by telemetry]

I have received another email from the same person regarding the assassination, which they have studied for some time now.

Here is their input, and it does sound plausible to me.


Here is another message

in that thread about jfk, people are saying how in the video the window that Oswald was in shuts closed before the shot is heard, and they are saying this means that Oswald could not have shot JFK.

One simple thing everyone is overlooking, is that sound travels slow, (have someone stand 500 feet from you and yell to you, while looking at their lips with binoculars).

So it's actually entirely possible that Oswald got the shot off, and then quickly closed the window after he took the shot, before the shot could be heard in the video. This actually makes sense, because after he took the shot at JFK he would want to close the window, because the police/SS would be looking for open windows to pinpoint which floor the shot came from. So this would make it easier for Oswald to escape.

Originally posted by rachel07

I have received another email from the same person regarding the assassination, which they have studied for some time now.

I would doubt the assertion that this person has studied the crime for some time, since, as you can see above, in Spork's post, the 6th floor window was open.

Always do your own research to verify. Beware of taking another person's opinion without due diligence. A quick search on Google revealed this:

www.jfk-assassination.de...



See the red arrow. This is the 6th floor where the alleged shooter had a sniper's nest.

HTH.

There are other reasons to doubt that LHO had anything to do with the shooting, but this is not one of them.



[edit on 26-6-2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by XcLuciFer


the driver did not shoot jfk, if you look closer you can see the reflection
of the passengers hair. the other thing you are forgetting is the bullet
proof glass between the driver and the president. this glass is rated
to stop 50 cal. bullets.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


i agree about cooper, the privacy window between the driver and the
prez is bullet proof. probably rated for 50 cal.
cooper became a dis info agent, if he new it or not, we will never know.

reply to post by rachel07


true. a lot of them were told to stand down that day.

Though there was a privacy partition between the front and rear seats in the X-100 Limo, I don't see any evidence that it was up, particularly with the top off.

Here's a pic showing it up close and there's no reflection or color alteration that you'd see if the partition was up.



Also, I doubt any window glass back then would withstand a .50 cal round. (below, the one on the left)



Only recently has there been automotive windscreens that can withstand such rounds, and it's not glass - it's called AON. (Aluminum oxynitride).

Interesting thought, but no, imo.

I am at work thus unable to come up with the pics, but if anybody has read Richard Hoagland's book "Dark Mission", there is a pair of pictures of LBJ getting inaugurated soon after the assassination. Here is the pic site:

content.answers.com...

Hoagland also has another image take seconds after this famous photo, which shows the two figures to his right (his wife and some one that was in charge of the bankroll (I will be able to get the name a bit later)). While everybody is still looking very morose, LBJ is turning his head over his right shoulder and looking at the guy with the bowtie, who is visibly winking to LBJ. A part that Hoagland did not mention about the second photo is how LBJ's wife looks like she's trying to look sad but is struggling really hard to supress the "my husband is the President now" kind of smile. I cannot find the pic on the internet but it is in Hoagland's book.

Don't forget the confession of E. Howard Hunt.

tw.youtube.com...