New video of JFK's shooter? (Grassy Knoll footage)

False scenarios have been deliberately planted to obscure what really happened. What we know for sure:
1) There was more than one shooter.
2) Someone with knowledge of what the route actually would be, got Oswald hired at the TBD.
3) Oswald was meeting with Ruby, and Ruby was plotting to kill JFK.
4) Oswald did not fire a rifle that day - no powder residue on his cheek.

2) is the most troubling to me. It says this was a high level conspiracy, and not just a mob action. Someone in the JFK Adminstration would have had to provide this information.

Also what is troubling is that so many people/witnesses were killed, even after Johnson was deceased. So the conspiracy probably involved Johnson at least to some degree, but must also have involved some other high level portion of the US govt. A portion of the government that went beyond Johnson.

Most likely:
Johnson - a conspirator. His mistress is very credible.
Hoover - a conspirator and guilty of obstruction of justice. He was being blackmailed by the mob.
CIA and/or other US intelligence agencies - conspirators, responsible for murders after the assassination.
Mob bosses - probably were contracted to be part of the hit.
George HW Bush - conspirator - the part of the CIA killing people after the assassination.
Nixon - may have been informed prior, which would make him a conspirator

They say Oswald's IRS returns are still classified. If so, they probably show he was on the US payroll.

George HW Bush may be the last living person who knows exactly what happened, and he won't talk.

Can you imagine how US history school books would read if they printed the truth?
Johnson/Hoover/Bush/Nixon decided to pull a coup and assassinate JFK.

reply to post by Matt1951


That was an interesting post of yours, and I agree with some of it, but I couldn't help be intrigued by one thing you said in particular. It was this...

Johnson - a conspirator. His mistress is very credible.

I'm curious, what makes you think Madeleine Is credible in anyway whatsoever? I'm just under the impression she certainly is not after all so I'm, and I'm sure others, would be interested in this view you have of her.

EDIT TO ADD: To clarify, I'm a firm believer that Johnson was "in on the plot" to assassinate Kennedy to be completely honest. But I'm not completely sold on the Madeleine Brown story yet thus why I ask for the reasoning behind your opinion of her and her credibility.



Researcher Gary Mack for example was also able to pick her story apart as you probably know already. Here's a very short snippet:

Madeleine has claimed over the years that she attended a party at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination and LBJ, Hoover and Nixon were there. The party story, without LBJ, first came from Penn Jones in Forgive My Grief. In that version, the un-credited source was a black chauffeur whom Jones didn’t identify, and the explanation Jones gave was that it was the last chance to decide whether or not to kill JFK. Of course, Hoover used only top FBI agents for transportation and in the FBI of 1963, none were black. Actually, there is no confirmation for a party at Murchison’s. I asked Peter O’Donnell because Madeleine claimed he was there, too. Peter said there was no party. Madeleine even said there was a story about it in the Dallas Times Herald some months later (which makes no sense), but she had not been able to find it. Val Imm (Society Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) told Bob Porter (of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza staff) recently she had no memory of such an event and even looked through her notes - in vain.

Could LBJ have been at a Murchison party? No. LBJ was seen and photographed in the Houston Coliseum with JFK at a dinner and speech. They flew out around 10pm and arrived at Carswell (Air Force Base in northwest Fort Worth) at 11:07 Thursday night. Their motorcade to the Hotel Texas arrived about 11:50 and LBJ was again photographed. He stayed in the Will Rogers suite on the 13th floor and Manchester (William Manchester - author of The Death of a President) says he was up late. Could Nixon have been at Murchison’s party? No. Tony Zoppi (Entertainment Editor of The Dallas Morning News) and Don Safran (Entertainment Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) saw Nixon at the Empire Room at the Statler-Hilton. He walked in with Joan Crawford (Movie actress). Robert Clary (of Hogan’s Heroes fame) stopped his show to point them out, saying “. . . either you like him or you don’t.” Zoppi thought that was in poor taste, but Safran said Nixon laughed. Zoppi’s deadline was 11pm, so he stayed until 10:30 or 10:45 and Nixon was still there.

(Source)

Hi,

Jim Marrs has stated that he knew her personally and found her to be credible. I have scanned her book on Amazon, Texas in the Morning. I can't prove anything one way or the other, but I believe her story. The death of her son makes me even more of a believer.

By the way, I appreciate all the hard work you have done regarding the JFK assassination. I have read all your threads here now.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by Illustronic

 

Why does he have to be using a standard gun? This is CIA, why would it be a standard gun? What covert weapons were they using against the Russians during the Cold War? Why does everyone, on a subject so touchy, JUST LIKE 9/11, just completely rule out the least likely explanation when so many factors point to it?

Either way, digital media can be manipulated, we will never know the truth and always continue to speculate, wasting yet even more time on a subject that really doenst matter anymore, especially when the loose ends are now pretty much tied up.

You've got Secret Service being stood down from the motorcade moments before, you have suits filming the incident like cold-blooded killers, you've got 2 front passengers exhibiting strange behaviour, reacting to whatever initial distress JFK was in, and you've got other factors which point to the driver having a hand in the incident...yet people refuse to believe that their government would do something like that, just ike their government sacrificing the lives of a mere 3000 americans, for what, Gold, Money, Money, Gold, Opinions, Sympathy, Peoples Rights, Momentum to go to War, To gain Cash rich Opium Fields of Afghanistan, and yet another strategical chess piece on the World Map....

I give up...this will be the last JFK thread I ever visit, sure, some will be glad.

I used to believe that the driver did it. About 10 years ago. But I wisened up. First of all, the videos we have now are clearer and you can see what looks to be his left hand resting at his side. You can also see that what many people thought was a gun was actually the top of the head of the guy sitting next to the driver. Either the videos were changed, the left hand is misidentified with something else, or we have to take what we have and go with the facts. I choose to go with the facts until they're shown to be mistaken.

Something else:
1) Witnesses said the driver slowed down during the critical moments and we know from the videos he's not going fast. Now 10 years ago I did some research and found that the driver SHOULD have been driving faster. By staying slow as he did he was not being responsible the way the secret service expects of him. He even looks back at the president as though he doesn't know what's going on. What a fool.

There's something else I'm remembering but it's not clear to me. The driver is still suspicious to me.

Anyway, we have also looked at the image of Oswald where he's holding that rifle. Many people in the past said that it was doctored to connect him with the crime. But recent investigations have proven this claim to be false. We know that the shadows and lighting cast in the image are accurate. It's highly unlikely that the image which shows him holding his rifle at his side is bogus. It looks to be genuine. So right there it makes me suspect that Oswald may indeed have been one of the gunmen like we've been told all along.

I think there's a decent chance of more gunmen. Sometimes I wonder whether the russians or the cubans or someone else did it and the reason we stopped investigations and settled for Oswald was because we didn't want to ruin relations further or hold back progress. So we cut the process and went home with it for different reasons. Not much longer after that we had Vietnam, so I'm sure they had their reasons for wanting to get it over with. I'm not saying this is all there is to it, but I think that it's a part of it. They wanted to conserve their energies.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if oneday we know hte truth and it's not that far from the Warren Commision conclusions. I don't think the Warren Commission will turn out to be conspirators. They, like us, didn't have all of hte information. I think that the truth is somewhere inbetween. There're likely pieces of this mystery that will never be uncovered. And then there're things we're going to find out that will clear some of the mystery and make us realize that we never had the full story so it's understandable why so many far flung ideas were peddled.

When people don't have all the answers, they tend to fill in the holes with their prejudices and expectations. But more than that, it's human nature to explain the unexplainable. I think that having more of the facts would benefit us greatly in our search for truth, but I don't think that we'll come out the other end any different than we're now.

You see, we'll always be limited in knowledge. We'll always fill in the holes with our expectations. Truth is a good thing. But again.... humans are humans. Truth doesn't change that fact. Money doesn't change it. Good looks don't. UFOs can't change it. God can't. We're hopeless to change it.

reply to post by Matt1951


Personally, I'm still not completely convinced. If true however, then wow, what an amazing story she's given us - one which changes everything, but I still find myself feeling slightly skeptical towards her mainly because there seems to be quite a few discrepancies.

Even so, I'd be a fool to completely dismiss it so I consider myself "on the fence" I guess.

EDIT: Thanks for the kind words as well, It's appreciated.

reply to post by Rising Against


Dude, Both pictures weren't taken at the same exact time. The shooter probably ducked down until he came down right infront of him. Use common sense.

Originally posted by airliebird58
I have seen the OP's posted footage before. It's a clip from a documentary by the UK's Channel 4 made in 1988. Called 'The Day the Dream Died' I found it full of interesting facts, the only thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is this 'enhanced' part of the Nix film.
The programme makers just 'drop' this nugget into the programme, with hardly any background info whatsoever. I know there would have been time restraints, but surely they could have given us some info on the technology used to create this image, or the French director who discovered it!
If anyone is interested in seeing the whole documentary it is available on YouTube, I'll post the 1st part here:

OK ~!! Well due to this video .. I"VE NEVER have heard any audio till now and you can CLEARLY HEAR the gun shots ring out RIGHT NEXT TO THE Camera, as soon as the film starts with Kennedy show up on the film~!!!

I think I've counted at least 4-5 shots .. and especially the one shot that hit him in the head.. you see Kennedy's head explode as soon as your hear the shot~!

WT*..~!!! As anyone else HEARD the Audio till this Film Documentary ?? I've seen the Z~film like a million times ..but NEVER heard the audio..

reply to post by HazyChestNutz


Err.. I don't think you quite understood..

The first image was just after the assassination and it shows the (non existent) "figure" in plain view. The second image is of the Moorman photo and was around 0.2 seconds before the assassination at the latest. If a shooter was present, he would've shown up in this photo here... which he doesn't.

The fact that he doesn't is proof he wasn't there... unless he can travel faster than 0.2 seconds and be able to aim his gun, fire it, stick around a little bit, and somehow not be seen by the hundreds of witnesses around him. Sorry, but telling me to use common sense here is rather hypocritical of you.

reply to post by MentalPriapism


vimeo.com... JFK, banks, Obombya, Bush , Crowley, Magick

reply to post by Matt1951


I subscribe to your thinking with your last couple posts. We've proven there was a conspiracy by insiders to assassinate J.F.K. I'm sure most of these people killed Robert Kennedy as well. We know the amount of inside work it would have taken to accomplish such a task. As much as I love a good theory or conspiracy, its clear we will never find out who killed them. The rabbit hole goes down so deep does it even matter anymore who killed them. We will never find out because they don't want us to. Look at the number of people killed associated with the assassination. The first rule in an assassination is....kill the assassin... I've said this before, that a country that is willing to assassinate its own president is a scary place to live. Think of the implications that multiple agencies conspirared to kill the leader of the free will. What a scary time in history too...the Cold War and Space War was highly ignited...damn scary time! Great couple of posts!!

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by Matt1951

 

I subscribe to your thinking with your last couple posts. We've proven there was a conspiracy by insiders to assassinate J.F.K. I'm sure most of these people killed Robert Kennedy as well. We know the amount of inside work it would have taken to accomplish such a task. As much as I love a good theory or conspiracy, its clear we will never find out who killed them. The rabbit hole goes down so deep does it even matter anymore who killed them. We will never find out because they don't want us to. Look at the number of people killed associated with the assassination. The first rule in an assassination is....kill the assassin... I've said this before, that a country that is willing to assassinate its own president is a scary place to live. Think of the implications that multiple agencies conspirared to kill the leader of the free will. What a scary time in history too...the Cold War and Space War was highly ignited...damn scary time! Great couple of posts!!

JFK was well revered by Australians, myself I liked what he stood for, but seeing, what with all the power of Knowledge now present, I have a question, as to files released, upon the expiry of the secrets act in US I have been led to believe amongst these documents, were several postulated reasons for his assassination

One of which I find difficult to comprehend, where it is claimed, that JFK along with the CIA had between them conspired and agreed to deal with the Cuban crisis, by flooding Cuba, there by destroying its economy

Can anyone confirm, that this is, or was one of the documents, and if so what is meant by flooding Cuba ?

I am sorry my post appears to have attached its self to the prior Quoted text please read it after the previous comments include within and at bottom of text

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


This is the photo I saw while watching a 1973 PBS program about the Kennedy murder. I can't believe it! Not some fuzzy 'thing' called a man but a real photograph of this gunman! Thanks for posting the photo.

I would like to know more about the process that was used to get from image 1 to image 4 in the sequence below - given my understanding of photography and film I have difficulty believing this:



Final result


Side X Side comparison of the alleged shooter David Ferrie

Personally, I don't buy into that digital enhancement. That detail could not be drawn out of the original picture. That detail was added. The reason I don't buy it as well, Is that the angle of that shooter's aim and where he is, doesn't at all work with the entrance and exit angle of the killshot. IMO, the angle of the killshot suggest the shooter was much further to the left of the knoll, probably even outside of this images angle, or could have even come from the over-pass. It's 100% proven that bullets were coming from the front of the car. Not only was there a bullet hole in the windshield that came in from the front (this is the shot I believe went through Kennedy's throat), but there was also a bullet strike that didn't go through on the "frome" of the front window, at the top of it.

Now, all that being said, I'll just play along and give this digital enhancemet credit for argument's sake, that it is of at least one of the shooters. Fine, ok.........but I would say that if there's any known suspect in the case that the enhancement is a dead ringer for.....it's E. Howard Hunt. It looks just like him.

The only thing I could see in recent times about the grassy knol picture, taken in the proximity of Kennedy's assassination's location is this: Cass Sunstein's job in "Conpiracy Theories" was AMAZING! ...

... This doesn't mean it succeeded though.

originally posted by: Rising Against
reply to post by MentalPriapism

 

Also, the presidential limousine is moving at all times, why doesn't he adjust himself to get the best shot? Is he really just picking one spot and waiting for the president to come into it before he fires? It's seemingly the only conclusion and It's not a plausible one at all.

Gordon Arnold - Full Inter with "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" Documentary

When the shots started to hit JFK, Bob Greer, his Secret Service driver, braked and didn't accelerate, which was in complete opposite of S.S. doctrine when the president was under threat, he slowed to about 13 miles an hour I think it's stated as. Why Greer practically stopped and didn't speed up until AFTER the third shot had been fired, is still a mystery.