Zapruder Film Discussion

[tom jeffers]

neab wrote:you can make anyone look suspicious when you sayin ,he knows so and so and he was 2nd cousin of... who worked for .... Doesn't make any sense for the conspirators to have footage of the assassination, especially since most people who view the zapruder footage conclude that a shot was taken from the front.the flap that is shown on jfk's temple i think was painted in along with the big blob of red blood pain to show an exit wound. they did the best with what they had and it isn't perfect but that is why it was hidden for all those years. the cover story went out, was accepted as fact and years later the z film is released that opened some questions but it was too late. if it was made public in 1964 then maybe the warren report would have been quiestioned more. in the end, it came out like planned.

[ThomZajac]

tom jeffers wrote:neab wrote:I thought it was altered when i watched it over a few times, but i dont buy the idea the conspirators wanted a film of the assassination as a trophy, nor do I feel zapruder was placed there specificly for this job. I always thought the footage was altered mostly cos the movements in the car didnt match the speed of the car among some other things that jack white's video presented.why else would they alter it, just for kicks? the cia confiscated everyones film in that area immediately, isn't it amazing that the most prominant photographer up on the pedastal, was missed by the confiscation team? they knew he was there and they would get that film. theyu got everyone elses film and made sure there were no major problems with the official story. some never got their films back and some only got part of their film back.It's amazing that the confiscation and non-return of "everyone's" photos and films present at Dealey Plaza is not more widely seen for what is was/is; obstruction of justice. Only a very few exceptions; Moorman's Polaroid, and Zapruder- the most conspicuous cameraman of them all! (Sorry, but you're not allowed to see it.... we can show you a few frames perhaps).(Same confiscation and non-return of film also happened with the RFK assassination)Lastly, I read in the paper today that the FBI- in response to a court ruling- finally released their surveillance tapes of the Oklahoma City bombing and guess what- at key moments prior to the detonation all four cameras were blacked out (edited blank) at the same time!

[tom jeffers]

it's just like requesting a document under the foia and getting it all blacked out except a few words. what else do you expect? oh yeah here are the documents showing how we defrauded america.....

[kenmurray]

Here is Marine sniper Craig Roberts take on the Oklahoma City Bombing:http://riflewarrior.com/okc.html

[Bob]

kenmurray wrote:Here is Marine sniper Craig Roberts take on the Oklahoma City Bombing:http://riflewarrior.com/okc.htmlAll the events like Iran/Contra, Mena, Oklahoma City, the first World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., were born the day JFK was assassinated. As Wim says on the home page..."Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today."

[ThomZajac]

On this we can agree.And that is really far more important than who fired what shots from where, and where and when did they hit, and what wounds did they cause. is it not?

[ChristophMessner]

It is. But can the trajectory from the right temple exit through the right occipital entry lead back to the 6th floor east window at all? It rather leads back to the DalTex Buildung or the County Records Building. And that leads back to the question why the people waving out of the DalTex windows never have been interrogated.

[ThomZajac]

I've asked this before, so forgive me...What evidence do we really have that JFK was struck from behind?The back wound wound seem to cinch it except for the facts that it wasn't observed at Parkland and that Humes himself suspected that it was not a true gunshot wound.Mind you, I'm not saying that there is no evidence that a shot or shots were fired from behind- at least one was necessary to implicate Oswald (and perhaps divert attention). But there is no medical evidence from Parkland to support a rear entry anywhere.Yes, I know there is the Files' account, but that certainly cannot be considered conclusive,And there is the Zapruder film, also not conclusive (and as I have expressed before, I think it is clear that the Zapruder film has been altered by the conspirators).Here is my point; while it can be said with absolute certainty that the president was struck by a shot fired from in front (Parkland testimony is overwhelming for starters), the same CANNOT be said about him being struck by a shot fired from behind. Maybe he was. But based on the skimpy evidence that exists, such a 'conclusion' would have to be considered speculation rather than fact, in my humble opinion.

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:On this we can agree.And that is really far more important than who fired what shots from where, and where and when did they hit, and what wounds did they cause. is it not?You sir are correct. I would much rather find out exactly WHO the conspirators were (and I have a damn good idea who might have been) as opposed to who fired the shots and from where. The shooters didn't cover things up after the murder...it was the conspirators and their minions. At least one of the conspirators is still alive. Right Poppy?

[kenmurray]

The shot at frame 285 video by Bob Harris:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDi ... re=related