The Best Zapruder film stabalisation yet in HD.

JohnnySasaki

OneFreeMan

You are kidding, right? Are we even looking at the same picture?
That dress should have been darkly blood-stained all over the front and back.
Her husband's head was supposed to have exploded all over her for God's sake.

And yes, even in black and white, it should be clear as day to see.
But nothing, nada, zero, zilch!

It was all badly and obviously faked.

edit on 17-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: (no reason given)

No, unfortunately it wasn't. Sorry. And yes, I do know how much blood comes out of a head wound. I've watched people shoot themselves in the face, I've seen people's head's being cut off etc.

The simple fact of the matter is, it happened the way it happened. You say there should have been more blood, but history proves you wrong. I don't even know why we're having this conversation. You're going to have to come up with a lot more than the level of blood shooting out of Kennedy's head to convince nearly anyone, and the fact that you are so convinced on that simple OPINION is quite embarrassing for you.

Remember this?

You're doing it again.

You've seen some nasty stuff there. The zapruder film has been proven doctored/altered,
so the way it happened is not the way it happened, if you catch the drift.

and what history is that exactly? The warren commission history, is it?
Your post amounts to a hill of beans!

Riffrafter

I appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to this thread and others.

What do you think of the video below which overlays and syncs up the Dictabelt recording from the motorcycle cop and the Zapruder film?

In addition to there clearly being 4 shots heard (which caused the House Select Committee on Assassinations to declare that there was a conspiracy), I'm particularly interested in your thoughts about the final 2 shots.

They can clearly be heard during the "kill shot" moment of Zapruder. Would you say there were spaced too closely together to have come from one man using a bolt-action rifle?

It certainly seems so, but am interested in your knowledgeable opinion.

Here's the clip:


Anyone else have any thoughts?

I have stated on many occasions that I believe there was a conspiracy. There were just too many people that had a motive to kill him. Is there any way you can prove the legitimacy of that recording? Because if so, you might be on to something, as it would be very hard to shoot that fast with a bolt action rifle (the last 2). I believe they also found 2 rifles, and the bullets they found in the book depository apparently didn't match the rifle. All according to testimony, of course.

My beef is with people who claim conspiracy based on ignorance of facts or, more often than not, simple physics. Based on the video footage (that would be near impossible to fake back then), and the autopsy photo's, (also hard to fake, but not quite impossible) make it obvious the 2 shots that I can see hit Kennedy came from behind. In fact, now that I think about it, the neck shot doesn't even look like it could have come from the book depository, beings it seems to enter (from behind) below his neck, and exit through his neck. With my minimal investigative abilities limited to online only, I would say it was most likely from ground level.

OneFreeMan
Your post amounts to a hill of beans!

Right back at you.

Also, I have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason why they would have faked EVERYTHING, when they could have very easily just did it for real. VERY EASILY.

Think about all the stuff they would have had to fake, all the people standing around watching that would have had to keep quiet, all the people involved in making a dummy that looks exactly like Kennedy (and have a real looking head wound), all the video footage of Kennedy getting shot (how'd they fake that again?) etc, etc, etc,..... The list goes on and on.

Give me a good reason why they would go through all that, with great risk of getting caught, when they could have just did it for real. Then, if it's a good enough reason, with at least SOME credible evidence, then I might open up to possibility.

Like I said, it was very likely a conspiracy, but not to the extent you guys seem to think.

JohnnySasaki

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

 

If you watch that Film Real carefully , you can plainly see a Fragmenting Bullet entering the Presidents Forehead from the Front of the car . The trajectory of a Shot from Behind him is Not there IMO . Sorry.........(shrug)

edit on 17-11-2013 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

I looked closely. I still don't see it, and I don't know how you expect to see a speeding bullet, most likely traveling at over 2500fps on a slightly slowed down film from the 1960's that is probably filmed in 24fps.

Btw, I wasn't just pulling that stuff I said out of thin air. I've taken target interdiction classes (aka sniper training) that also teach how bullets react when they hit the body, among other things. Entry wounds leave very small holes, whereas exit wounds are almost always explosive and leave very large holes. What's more, there is minimal energy transfer from the bullet to the person getting hit with it. It's going so fast that it just zips through, so that alone debunks the head being pushed back from the bullet IMPACT. However, I could very well see the head being jerked back from the explosive force of the exit wound.

1- Have you actually seen the autopsy photos? Many people (myself included) feel that some of them indicate a large exit wound near the top/back of JFK's head.


2- I think to suggest that a head would not move, at all due to a high velocity bullet going through it seems a bit odd and silly.

JohnnySasaki
reply to post by NowanKenubi

 

You didn't watch the video I posted, did you? Bullets hitting a soda can, or a watermelon, don't exactly match up with what would happen when a bullet hit's a human head. That's why I took careful consideration to post a video of bullets hitting ballistic gel, beings it was designed to closely resemble human flesh.

Ballistics gel is a great simulation for a gut shot. But it simulates flesh, not bone density. Let alone an orb made of bone, filled with grey matter and fluid, slightly pressurized.

FlyersFan
I read an article by one of the bodyguards from that day. He said that Jackie jumped onto the back of the moving vehicle and was trying to gather the pieces of JFKs skull. It looks like they found the pieces. They were big enough to collect ....

(man this is a gross conversation)

Tell me about it. I haven't eaten all day, have a burrito in the microwave, and I was just looking at autopsy pics.


Regarding your comment-- some theorists have speculated that some of the secret service agents might have been in on it. And if you believe it was most likely a top-down conspiracy, like I do, that sort of makes sense. Some of the agents do behave in a strange manner, in one way or another. There is a video that clearly shows some of the secret service agents being ordered off the back of the car, I believe just before it turned onto Dealey Plaza. You can clearly see the agent ordered to back off turn (to someone? who?) and raise his arms up, almost in a "WTF is going on here?" kind of gesture.

JohnnySasaki
Also, I don't know why they would have wanted to fake the autopsy photo's. I mean, from what I see in the video, the autopsy photo's seem fairly accurate. Bullet impact in back of head, and a large exit wound at the front. Seems to check out.

I have difficulty reconciling the official story with the autopsy photo. I don't see how he could have produced that large exit wound, from an angle of up and behind (from the book depository).

And I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the video, either. There is a spray coming off the front/side. Assuming that hasn't been manipulated in any way, I would think that spray of blood would be the best way to determine the area of the shot. Then again, the vehicle was moving. So would that affect the appearance?

FlyersFan
The only snag is that eye witness' say the car STOPPED and the film says it didn't.
Eyewitness' can get things wrong ... the film shows the car slowing waaaay down.

I've seen a couple lecturers claim (and try to illustrate) that the video has been manipulated. Especially in the regard of the speed of the vehicle, and the amount of time it was stopped for.


I even heard one guy make the claim that there is a video out there, which a few of these CT guys have supposedly seen, that does show the car coming to a complete stop. Whether this is an urban legend or not, of course I can't say. But it almost seems plausible, when some of the other stuff is taken into account. The secret service agent(s) being called off, as I mentioned in my last post. The vehicle slowing down after the first shot. Even if it didn't stop... isn't slowing down the exact opposite of how they're trained to react in that situation?

reply to post by SecretKnowledge


both shots came from the front.

when a person is stung by a bee, bitten by a bug, burned, slapped, etc.... what does that person naturally do with their hands? it is an automatic response. the hands go to the point of pain. president kennedy's hands go to his throat first. then the head goes back violently to the left. sorry, but physics indicate that when force is applied to a stationary target, the force and impact cause it to go in the direction the force was heading.

JohnnySasaki
I believe that interview was in 1994 (could be wrong). Over 30 years after the shooting. Stories can change a lot during 30 years. What's more, I believe he has officially changed his story multiple times. Is it not inconceivable that the hole he is referring to, was the entry wound (as we have clear evidence of the entry wound on the back of his head) and not the exit wound? Or maybe he is remembering what he saw AFTER the autopsy had already started, which probably involved some sort of cutting into JFK's skull?

1- I love how you start out (in another post) saying all you've got are pics of people holding the back of their heads, and it could be taken out of context, describing entry wounds, etc. Then you're given proof that's not the case (and I knew that wasn't the case, as I've seen many of these eyewitness accounts) and despite this proof, you then change your story to "oh, that was a long time after it happened, etc."


I concede that memories are not always that reliable. Sometimes mine is quite terrible. But I can tell you exactly what I was doing, over a decade ago, the moment I heard about the 9/11 attacks. I do not think that seeing half the president's head missing is something these people would ever easily forget. Even then, memories can sometimes become exaggerated.... but when you've got a whole lot of people (did you see how many were in that picture) all saying the same thing... you're really beginning to stretch your credulity to claim that they're all remembering it wrong.

JohnnySasaki
I'm just throwing out idea's here. All of which are a lot more likely than them faking a bunch of video and photographs, which would have been extremely hard back then, when all they would have had to do is just have someone actually shoot him from behind, like the video shows. Why would they have gone to all that trouble just to shoot him from the front? It would have been a 100000 times easier and less risky to just have the shooter in the book depository like they concluded, whether it was Oswald or not.

2- All of which? LOL You're giving yourself way too much credit there.


You're right-- it's terribly unlikely that a government... pretty much the most powerful in the world, with nearly infinite resources would have gone to the trouble to fake some stuff, to get away with a coup. I mean, why would they? LMAO

Nor would it have been as hard as you make it sound. No, they didn't have our powerful computers, or photoshop. But the art of photo manipulation goes way back. And I'm sure you realize the government could afford the best of the best. Not as hard or implausible as you make it sound.

JohnnySasaki
Like I have stated many times, the shot was EASY for a trained shooter. No reason for multiple shooters unless you're dealing with a bunch of men who are incompetent, which doesn't exactly sound like a good description of someone who successfully pulled off an assassination of the president of the United States and following cover-up.

There are reasons to believe they wanted this done in Texas... beyond simple opportunity. Too much to get into, save to say it was a top-down conspiracy, that LBJ / Nixon et al knew about.


So say you plan this thing out. You want it done. You know you have one, and exactly one chance to pull it off. You fail once, and his security measures quadruple overnight. Not to mention that a failed attempt puts you at greater risk of being caught, nevermind over a second attempt, which you'd have to be nearly crazy or suicidal to try. You have ONE SHOT (no pun.) Are you really going to trust it to one man, and his rifle? No matter how well trained he is. No matter how "easy" that shot "should be" for someone with training?


Nerves can happen. Fluke accidents can happen. Any of a thousand things could happen. Why take a chance, on THE MOST critical moment the moment of life or death, when you can instead position several shooters, and just worry about making the evidence line up later, once your objectives have been reached, and you are in full power and control, to make that coverup happen?


To me, that is the illogical scenario. Once you have that man dead, you have all the weight you need to cover it up. Mess up in killing him? That man is still in power, and will want answers. Meaning you could be hanging by the end of next week, things don't go right.


I say it only makes sense to have more than one shooter, even if you hopefully only need the one. At least, if it was a conspiracy, and not just Oswald, that is. I think the lone gunman only makes sense, if it was not a conspiracy. Otherwise, that's just not how our government would operate, IMO.

OneFreeMan

If blood is pouring from a gaping head wound, where would you expect
it to go? My answer is everywhere. The 'blood' was a later addition.

Do you realise just how profusely even minor head wounds bleed?
This is supposed to come from a fist size hole!
Everything should have been saturated.

But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking, even if we accept your point as correct, what does it mean?

Is this just an observation that you have made that makes you suspicious? Or do you think this is evidence of something specific, ie "the assassination was faked", or "after the car stopped out of sight they realised he survived, so his wife got out and they shot him again in the head", etc?

What is the point that you are trying to make with this observation?

reply to post by OneFreeMan

Please keep your eyes on Jackie Kennedy.
What, you may ask, is she waiting for?

Please watch in full screen.

I did.

The car was moving slowly enough (at Z-313) for SS agent to run ahead and catch the limo (approx Z-335).

Jackie is trying to climb out of the back seat to exit the vehicle (Z-344) which has slowed down for the planned head shot but as the limo is starting to accelerate again (Z-375) and at the same the SS agent has redirected her back into the seat (Z-390).

I think that it's fairly clear from the Z-film that Jackie was panicked, the car was moving so slow, she thought she could escape the car, which she was thwarted from doing by both the SS agent and the timing of the limo acceleration.

loveguy
I've always found it curious why the car slowed to a near stop prior to the shots being fired?

It was purely anticipatory IMO.

According to eye witnesses, the limo moved slowly for the first shots. Then the limo driver Greer stopped for the fatal head shot.

The stopped limo is good evidence of Secret Service involvement in the assassination.

reply to post by iwilliam


So basically I'm just supposed to believe literally all the footage is completely fake, all the autopsy photo's are fake, and all the people who were actually there to see it are fake too?

What evidence are you providing? I have yet to see you provide anything but theories.

Okay, fine, if you really wanted the guy dead, then it wouldn't hurt to have multiple shooters, but that still doesn't negate the fact that you have absolutely ZERO proof of that. I would love to see some non-circumstantial evidence of ANYTHING you're claiming.

I have provided pictures, video, and described why the things happened the way they did in them, or how. You simply dismiss all that as fake (conveniently) and provide theories with NOTHING to back it up. If something doesn't fit your story, you just dismiss it as the all powerful government covering it's tracks. Certainly you have to see the absurdity at some point.

With JFKs head sitting so low in the car, it made an almost impossible target. Looking at the film repeatedly, seeing the discharge from the wound, it almost looks like the shot came from the trunk of the car - inside!

reply to post by iwilliam

I say it only makes sense to have more than one shooter, even if you hopefully only need the one.

Yes and the shooters do not know of the other shooters. That is routine black operations strategy.

There is evidence of 2 or more shooters behind the picket fence (CIA? DIA? mafia?). There is evidence of 2 or more shooters on the 6th floor of the depository (Mack Wallace from LBJ's group?). There was at least 1 shooter in the Dal Tex building (mafia?). There is evidence of a shooter in the back of a pickup truck on Commerce Street to the left front of the limo. There is evidence of a shooter in the storm drain (Frank Sturgis?). An empty cartridge was found on a roof years later.

One person said they had a truck full of explosives just beyond the underpass if needed.





Much of this evidence can be found in the book A Deeper Darker Truth based on a study of Tom Wilson.

iwilliam
1- I love how you start out (in another post) saying all you've got are pics of people holding the back of their heads, and it could be taken out of context, describing entry wounds, etc. Then you're given proof that's not the case

When was I proven wrong again? You have ONE guy, 30 years later saying what he thought he saw. That wouldn't hold up in any court of law, even for a second.

What's more, in the photo's I have provided, you can see that the exit wound is actually at the top of his skull, beings he was leaning forward. So it's not actually that far away from where the man thought he remembered seeing it. BTW, even the picture someone provided of a drawing of what they saw, was drawn over 3 years after the shooting.

Try and remember something for 3 years and then draw it accurately without a reference.

You've watched too much of that JFK movie, haven't you? Maybe too many conspiracy videos on youtube, giving you myths instead of facts? Maybe you've spent too much time on this site, which I think we all know is known for it's credibility and accuracy, lol.

reply to post by iwilliam




I swear, in the future, if we ever really develop a time machine and are able to go back and witness it for ourselves, you'll stand there with a straight face and tell me that history is fake.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


She was trying to help him. He was unable to bend forward due to the back brace he was wearing for back pain.