Zapruder film 44 year later. Must read!

[WileEcoyote]

This is an illuminating story folks. Am merely noting a very obvious film excerpt. I mean it shows it very clearly.

It has being 44 years after the fact, but just today I finally observed something of interest in Dealey Plaza. After watching every available youtube footage of the Zapruder film and stopping the film maybe eight seconds or so after the president's limo comes out from behind the sign it apparently shows the driver of the car reaching around with his left hand and popping the Prez in the head with the fatal shot.

Hey this is shocking! And it shows up on every single video sequence on the internet showing the Zapruder film.

Every single one of them...

Unless someone can come up with an alternative idea of what the driver was doing during his sudden turn, quick aim with some kind of handgun and firing a remarkably quick shot to the head at the same time Kennedy's head gets blown off. If true then the other shots, rear, side or whatever were to be either a distraction or duplication.

Freeze this video exactly 1 minute 59 seconds (1:59).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66__vymfPA&feature=related

Do it!

Even this first ever on TV late night episode shows the limo driver pegging the man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DwKK4rkeEM&feature=related

But again it shows it most definitively here at 1:59 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66__vymfPA&feature=related

[Blashyrkh]

1. Kicked for bookmark. Interesting.

[dogindia]

102. here is the link to a stabilized version. It sure looks like you are right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38&feature=related

I played it a number of times and I always seen to see a gun in the hand of the driver shooting. But then.....

[dogindia]

103. And here is another Youtube...suggesting that the film was altered..interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs&feature=related

[MinM]

132. John Costella: JFK assassination film hoax

John Costella, the foremost expert on the Zapruder film, breaks it down here..
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

This might look fast, but compare it to the “head-snaps” of the Secret Service driver of the limousine:

Now, as you looked at that last clip, you might have noticed some other weird things.

The most obvious is that, at exactly the same time, all four people lurch forward suddenly:

You don’t need to know the laws of physics to know what this means: the car must have braked suddenly at that time. But if you watch the film, the car doesn’t brake at all!

Scientists have taken careful measurements of the film, to figure out when the limousine was slowing down and speeding up. According to its motion on the film, it is slowing down for a few seconds before this time! Worse, at the time of the lurch, the car starts to accelerate rapidly!

Have you ever been in a car when someone has planted their foot on the gas pedal, and been thrown forward? Of course not! It’s ridiculous! It violates the laws of physics, and it violates common sense.

The next weird thing you might have noticed is that Governor and Mrs Connally both “collapse” to the floor very rapidly:

It’s almost like they were nine-pins, designed to fall out of sight!

According to Mrs Connally, she pulled the Governor down into her lap to protect him, and according to the Governor he then lost consciousness. They never described both collapsing like this. Worse, if you watch the full MPEG movie above, you can see that the Governor gets back up again, and looks over his wife!

It is quite likely that the Connallys had to be “collapsed” out of sight like this because of a photograph that was taken by an Associated Press photographer and published in newspapers around the world within hours of the assassination:

Zooming in on where the Connallys should be, we see that there is nothing visible except a bunch of flowers:

In the actual assassination, there would have been several seconds when the limo stopped, and then accelerated again, during which the Connallys would have dropped down to avoid the fusillade of shots reported by eyewitnesses.

By removing the car stop, the forgers had to make the Connallys collapse in a way that would be comical if the implications were not so grave.

The only way to cover up these mistakes was to make Zapruder’s camera appeared to jerk around wildly at these times, and then to make sure that any stabilized film was only ever shown in slow motion.

By watching these clips at full speed, you can see through the lies with your own eyes!

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

[SDuderstadt]

140. Inconvenient fact

you're forgetting that other people also took film. This theory of a "doctored" Zapruder film has been debunked numerous times.

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. Very interesting... it took me 3 times to really catch it, but you're right...

it *does* look like he turns and shoots over his right shoulder with his left hand....

[democrat in Tallahassee]

15. the "handgun" is the top of the head of the other ss agent in the front seat

they both turn around when they hear the shot; light is reflecting off the head of the passenger in the front seat of the driver. They both hunker down after the next shot is fired.

[alfredo]

61. I watched an enhanced version and you can see the driver look back

twice. You can clearly see what looks like his hand is actually his forehead.

I think the shot that caused the splash was from the back.

[lovuian]

57. It looks like it to me too

when we see the Zapruder film in the past its the focus on kennedy not a wider angle

purposely manipulating the viewer

JFK assasination just made them bolder and bolder
next Bobbie and MLK

[Bruce McAuley]

3. I admit you have a point.

The film at 1 minute 58 or 59 seconds shows either the driver or passenger pointing a handgun backwards at Kennedy and it looks like the shot came from there.
But certainly someone else has looked at these films frame by frame...
Looks like the killer was in the front seat, all right, if I had to guess. A couple other guys on the grassy knoll also for bullets and diversion and the job is done.
George H. W. Bush's finest(?) caper, I think.

Bruce

[hlthe2b]

4. I don't get sufficient resolution to see much...

But, these frame by frame segments have been studied by innumerable people over the years, including scholars and those determined to prove a conspiracy. And they have had access to higher resolution copies that they could manipulate to see more detail. If that is the case, how could it have been missed?

I don't believe in a single shooter either, nor certainly the findings of the Warren Commission. I'm just asking about this finding...

[SDuderstadt]

5. You're kidding, right?

Are you now claiming that Jackie was in on it too? How much was she paid not to tell what she knew? Is my sarcasm clear?

This reminds me of the joke about the two JFK assassination conspiracy theorists who die and go to heaven. There they are met by God and St. Peter and, after all the preliminaries, God instructs both of them, "Look...just for the record, Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK all by himself, so please don't start that conspiracy nonsense here, okay?". At this point, one of the conspiracy theorists leans into the other and says under his breath, "I had no idea the coverup could go this high!".

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. Where in the *hell* did you come up with the idea that anyone said Jackie was in on it?

What she "knew" was that she was focused on her husband, NOT the limo driver... and people who reviewed these films probably never focused much on the occupants of the limo, including the driver, as suspects.

Much like the 9-11 Commission didn't test WTC steel for explosive residue because they felt no need to, the Warren Commission may have never paid attention to the limo driver and/or other occupants....

As far as Jackie "knowing" anything else... they made silencers back then, too.. and one could have been used and no one heard a gunshot coming from inside the vehicle...

*removes tinfoil hat*

Do you have any other explanation of the drivers actions?

[SDuderstadt]

19. You're really not serious, are you?

So, the driver of the limo shot JFK and killed him, but no one else in the car noticed it? Please. Did the bullet go around JFK's head and cause the entrance wound in the back of his head? Surely, you're not claiming the exit wound on the side of his head is an entrance wound, are you? Could this get any sillier?

As far as the driver's reaction, exactly what would you expect him to do? Keep driving like nothing happened? Please, think this through.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. No, he was already shot... the driver just made sure he was dead...

I honestly haven't read up much on the conspiracies or anything, I'm just making an observation from this film clip... the side of the head is clearly an exit wound...was the entry wound in the back of the head or on the left side of his head?

What about these reports?

Dr. McClelland
Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6).

At this time he was Assistant Professor of Surgery, he would not be expected to mistake the site of a wound in any patient. But JFK was not just any patient, he was the President. I suggest that McClelland would have written a very carefully considered admission note for this patient.

In a short admission note, this divergence from the "official" line is easily spotted. Yet Specter did not ask McClelland to clarify this statement, he directed McClelland away from re-reading his report by asking him to check his signature. Specter then asked whether McClelland would stand by his report before bringing questioning to a speedy halt (7).

In an interview with Gerald Posner, Jenkins claims that McClellands's impression of a wound to the left temple is mistaken and stems from a short exchange between the pair when McClelland entered Trauma Room 1. Jenkins claims that McClelland asked where JFK was hit. Jenkins claims that he was searching for a temporal pulse at this time and that McClelland assumed that Jenkins was pointing out a wound. As we can see previously from Jenkins' own testimony, however, it is quite likely that Jenkins was indeed pointing to an area he thought was wounded (8).

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~klark/leftwounds.html (many more reports of left temporal wounds from several doctors, a priest, a Secret Service agent and JFK's press secretary.)

This would fall in line with the driver shooting left handed over his right shoulder, striking JFK in the left temple and exiting on the right.. or the bullet lodged in the brain.... if there was a wound in the back of the head also, it could have caused the right front exit wound...

[SDuderstadt]

27. Do you know how absurd this sounds?

First of all, any notion that JFK was shot in the left temple is refuted by the lack of damage to the left hemisphere of his brain, not to mention the absolute lack of a wound to his left temple.

As to whatever Dr. McClelland said, note that in the aftermath of catastrophic events, many people make errors of judgment, recollection and analysis. The ensuing confusion is, in fact, one of the things that fuels conspiracy theories, as any piece of missing or seemingly contradictory evidence is construed to be "evidence" of a conspiracy. The problem is that conspiracy theorists insist on rigorous standards of evidence for anyone proclaiming the "official story", but refuse to apply those same rigorous standards to their own goofy theories.

I sincerely recommend Bugliosi's book as a great starting point to understand what happened that day.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. Did you follow the link I provided? There's more than just one person stating left temporal wounds

Do you know how absurd it sounds to suggest ALL of these people were wrong??

The evidence for wounding in the left of JFK's head comes from the following sources:

Four Parkland doctors (two who would have been at JFK's head) - admittedly, one was hearsay
Two autopsy surgeons
A priest
A Secret Service Agent
JFK's press secretary.

I don't play the games you "debunkers" try to play, so go run that shit on someone else... as with the 9-11 "debunkers", I laugh in your face at your silly attempts to push the "official story" from a government that is known to lie and has been proven to lie to their citizens....

Question EVERYTHING!

[WillowTree]

31. And the evidence against any notion that Kennedy was shot in the left side of his head

is pretty clear in the autopsy photos.

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html

[SDuderstadt]

34. Well, it's not absurd to "suggest all these people were wrong"....

especially when their accounts are absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence.

For starters, what particular reason do we have to believe Russell Kent? Is he an expert on the assassination? I'd never heard of him before, have you? How do you know that what Kent states is true? Have you confirmed it in any way? More importantly, did you read what he wrote in any detail? Do you notice how he writes in an extremely tentative manner?

For example, Kent's preamble includes the following:

"Most of the available evidence points to wounding in the right rear (occipito-parietal) of the head:

The Zapruder film shows wounding in the right
Most of the reports from the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors mention wounding in the right rear (1).
Most of the eye-witnesses report wounding in the right rear (2).
The major wounds disclosed in the autopsy photographs and x-rays were in the right of the skull."

He goes on to cite one portion of WCT as saying:

"Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins.
Dr. JENKINS. Well, I was feeling for - I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." (3)

Read that carefully and you find that the witness (Jenkins) is casting doubt as to what he actually observed, stating that he "thought" there was a wound, but does not "know whether this is right or not". Does that sound convincing to you?


He goes on to cite a secret service agent thusly:

"Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the Presidential limousine through Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and must have got a look at JFK's head when they arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Greer described to author David Lifton how JFK's head "looked like a hard-boiled egg with the top chopped off" (14). This would mean damage to the left as well as the right."

Notice that it's not Greer who states "This would mean damage to the left as well as to the right", but could be either Kent or Lifton and, further, the statement itself is not very clear as "to the left as well as to the right of WHAT?"

In the case of Malcom Kilduff, it's even less convincing, especially since the interview was conducted some 28 years after the assassination.

As far as any references to David Lifton, he is one of THE most suspect CT authors and is simply not believable. For example, Lifton claims that JFK's body was kidnaped and surgery was performed to obscure the physical evidence. As if this wasn't goofy enough on its face, please try to answer the following questions.

1) When was JFK's body kidnaped since the coffin was never out of anyone's sight all the way up to arrival at the autopsy?

2) How would the "conspirators" have known where the body was to be taken for the autopsy so they could arrange to return it before the start of said autopsy?

3) Wouldn't you think that conspirators smart enough to pull off such a plot would have made sure that physical evidence contradicting the above was "done away with"?

By the way, please tell me what "silly game" I am playing. Be specific. It sounds to me more likely that, like most diehard CT's, you simply cannot take it when evidence refuting your "theory" shows just how silly your theory is.

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. Do you cherrypick quotes much? Let's look at the whole thing, shall we?

Dr. Jenkins
Dr. Marion T Jenkins was Professor and Chairman of Anaesthetics. His natural position in the trauma room would be at the head of the patient monitoring and administering anaesthetics or, as with JFK, oxygen. He would have had a good chance to study the head wound carefully. Bearing this in mind, part of Jenkins' testimony to the Warren Commission is extraordinary:
"Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins.
Dr. JENKINS. Well, I was feeling for - I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." (3)

"Notice that Specter, very carefully, does not say that there was no wound in the left temporal area, rather he says that the autopsy report doesn't disclose such a wound. We know that the autopsy report failed to disclose many things which were apparent - the atrophied adrenal glands, for example (4) Was a wound in the left side of the head omitted too?"

Two pages after this remarkable testimony, Jenkins asks to go o ff the record for a discussion with Specter. One page later, the questioning continues:
"Mr. SPECTER: Aside from that opinion , have any of your other opinions about the nature of his wounds or the sources of the wounds been changed in any way?
Dr. JENKINS. No; one other. I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the left temporal area?
Dr. JENKINS. Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating), but you have answered that for me. This was my only other question about it." (5)

"Jenkins was obviously bothered by his recollection of a left wound and he is very specific about its location. It is particularly suspicious that Specter seems to have "answered that" after an off the record discussion."

What do you think happened in that off the record meeting? Threats, bribes or blackmail could make someone change their story or "question their memory" of events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of your questions: I stated clearly above that all I'm commenting on is *this* video & OP... period. Which part of that didn't you understand when you made the mistake of labeling me as a conspiracy theorist? I don't know anything about his body being kidnapped or anything else. Where do you come up with some of this crap? You also cherrypicked ONE author out of 24 given references... what about the other 23? Let's hear your take on them... it's not hard to get one nut in a group of 24 people... I look forward to reading your debunking of ALL of them.
here's the link again, the sources are at the bottom: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~klark/leftwounds.html

[SDuderstadt]

44. It's pretty funny that you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist, yet...

the headline of your post that I was responding to read, "No, he was already shot... the driver just made sure he was dead...". Why, how silly of me to lump you in with conspiracy theorists when all you did is make an assertion that the Secret Service Agent driving the limo was there to make sure that Kennedy was dead.

As for your claim that I appear to be cherry-picking the quotes, it was YOUR suggestion that all those people could not be wrong, right? If someone was trying to show that at least some of them were, in fact, wrong, how would they go about it? Hint: by doing exactly what I did. I just started with some of the more obvious examples.

Again, the testimony of these witnesses (assuming Kent even got that right.....hint: you don't know, do you? You're just assuming Kent did.) is absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence. Please explain that. Do you even know how crimes are solved? If there is a discrepancy between a witness' testimony and the physical evidence, how do you think the testimony is regarded? What if the physical evidence absolutely contradicts the testimony (as it does in this case)? What do you do then? Ignore the physical evidence?

Oh, by the way, THAT'S why I made reference to the body being kidnaped. YOUR own "source" references David Lifton, which is what makes it laughable. Lifton gained infamy precisely because when the physical evidence contradicted his theory on the assassination, he went off the rails and then theorized that JFK's body was kidnaped and surgically altered to make it consistent with the "official story". Could this get any sillier?

What's even funnier is that one of the passages that you bolded itself appears to have been "altered", as it doesn't even make grammatical sense (subject/verb agreement, i.e., "Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins."). Do you think that just slipped through or did Kent (or whoever he was citing) change it? Did you bother to check it against Jenkins' actual testimony or did you just take Kent's word for it?

Beyond that, as to your silly assertion that I "cherrypicked ONE author out of 24 given references", read your own source again. There are not 24 "authors" cited by 24 endnotes; 12 reference either testimony or exhibits before either the Warren Commission (denoted as either WC or CE) or the House Select Committee on Assassinations (denoted as HSCA). Again, what reason do you have to believe Kent? Again, please tell me how you reconcile the "expert testimony" upon which Kent's claims appear to rest with the actual physical evidence? Beyond that, if the Secret Service Agent/limo driver was tasked with making sure that Kennedy was dead, could you give us some insight around the possible planning of that? Or, will you realize that the whole thought of that is so absurd that it's pointless to even go down that road?

Actually, you DO go down that road with your claim that "As far as Jackie "knowing" anything else... they made silencers back then, too.. and one could have been used and no one heard a gunshot coming from inside the vehicle...". Do you even know how silencers work? Do you think that they really render a gunshot "silent"? Hint: they don't and the word silencer is a bit of a misnomer (from "How Stuff Works": "A silencer screws on to the end of the barrel and has a huge volume compared to the barrel (20 or 30 times greater). With the silencer in place, the pressurized gas behind the bullet has a big space to expand into. So the pressure of the hot gas falls significantly. When the bullet finally exits through the hole in the silencer, the pressure being uncorked is much, much lower -- perhaps 60 psi. Therefore, the sound of the gun firing is much softer." Read that last sentence again...."the sound of the gun firing is 'much softer' ". The shot is not silenced (more like muffled) and it is silly to assert that those in the car would not have noticed a "silenced shot".

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. I've never read so many words that said absolutely nothing before.. congratulations!

You won the award for 'Windbag of the Year"... I suggest you do some more reading, and follow a link that was provided for you, in which you have failed to the same, as is the MO for you so called "debunkers"...

You totally contradict yourself, don't remember what YOU said in a previous post, you twist words and you just "make shit up" as you go along.

Here's your first hint: What's even funnier is that one of the passages that you bolded itself appears to have been "altered", as it doesn't even make grammatical sense (subject/verb agreement, i.e., "Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins."

In this sentence, it shows the Mr. Specter is speaking. Have you ever read an interview or a transcript before?? Apparently not, or you would know that they identify the speaker first. In other words, Mr. Specter said "The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins." Do you understand that clearly now?

As to whether the transcriber left the "s" off of either the word "reports" as in "the autopsy reportss disclose no..." or off the word "disclose" as in "the autopsy report discloses no....", or maybe it was transcribe exactly as Arlen Specter SAID it. Have you ever heard him talk? He's just a little better than Dumbya when it comes to public speaking. I really don't know, or care, about a missing "s" from a word, but that seems to be another MO of you "debunkers". If you can't refute the statement, you pick at spelling, grammar and/or sentence structure. It's all you've got, really...

I'll let *you* figure out the rest of your nonsense and bullshit, there's plenty of it in your reply.

Here's a few things to work on:
Have *you* ever owned and/or FIRED a weapon that had a silencer on it? (I'm guessing "no" or you would know how full of BS you are).

Go to the link I provided, go to the bottom of the page, and COUNT the number of sources that were used in that document. It *shouldn't* be too hard for you to do, they made it easy by numbering them.... 1 through 24.

"Beyond that, as to your silly assertion that I "cherrypicked ONE author out of 24 given references", read your own source again. There are not 24 "authors" cited by 24 endnotes; 12 reference either testimony or exhibits before either the Warren Commission (denoted as either WC or CE) or the House Select Committee on Assassinations (denoted as HSCA)."

You did a great job of debunking yourself here though. *I* never said "24 authors", did I?? No? I didn't think so... *you* said that. What do the 24 "endnotes" provide? They provide "references" to materials that were used for this project, don't they? So *that* would make them "24 given references", wouldn't it??

Try a new hobby... this one isn't going too well for you...

[SDuderstadt]

60. It seems to be going considerably better for me....

considering that you've now been forced to result to insults, rather than debate the merits. "Windbag of the year"? Gee, your wit is incredible. Typical CT response.

As to your suggestion that I "do more reading", do you have any particular suggestions? You're being a little vague here and I suspect it's on purpose because you seem to be floundering. I mean, seriously, do you think the fact that Kent includes endnotes makes him credible? By that measure, I guess Ann Coulter must be believable because her books contain numerous endnotes. Better yet, it would seem that Vincent Bugliosi is far more believable than Kent because he has many more endnotes.

The funniest thing is your demand to know whether I ever owned or fired a weapon with a silencer on it. Sadly, I must report that I no longer have access to a silenced weapon since my 007 status was revoked for "indiscretions". Are you serious? Are you honestly suggesting that only someone who has fired a silenced weapon can know how loud they are? How in the world do people ever learn anything unless they experience it? Actually, this is just another typical CT diversion. Seriously, silencers can muffle the sound to about 60 decibels, which is akin to the sound of a door slamming, not the almost undetectable "phut" one hears in movies and tv shows. More importantly, do you know what kind of sidearm was standard issue for Secret Service Agents in 1963? I'm willing to bet they were issued .38 revolvers, which creates yet another problem for your claim, inasmuch as silencers are far less effective when used with a revolver because of the gap between the barrel and the front of the cylinder. But, of course, I'm sure you knew that.

You seem to be so wrapped up in this that you can't employ logic anymore. Do you honestly think NO one in the car would have noticed the driver pull out any sort of weapon and shoot JFK? How about the hundreds of witnesses that day whose eyes were riveted upon JFK? No one from any angle saw the driver draw a weapon and shoot JFK? Please. This just gets siller and sillier as you get backed into a corner. Please square this ciricle for us. Then answer this question. The CT community has had 44 years to prove their case. Why can't they?

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. ***SNORT!!!*** .... Wow, you *really* are clueless, huh?

You have a very short attention span and an even shorter memory recall span... How many times have I told you that I really don't give a fuck about this and that "I am ONLY commenting on THIS OP"??? Yet you still keep on with calling me a conspiracy theorist. Let me tell you something, in no uncertain terms. YOU ARE WRONG! Period... Deal with it..

Your inability to keep up with a conversation is stunning... absolutely stunning....

You seem to be so wrapped up in this that you can't employ logic anymore.

Ummm, no... that would be *you*. You seem to have a great part of your life devoted to this. You should get out more. You see, I can go to bed tonight and never think of this again... can *you*?? I can employ more logic than you can dream of. I can also allow my mind to wander a little bit, without fear of it losing its way back to me... I can delve into the darker side of life and ask "what if?" You seem too narrow minded to allow yourself to do this...

Do you honestly think NO one in the car would have noticed the driver pull out any sort of weapon and shoot JFK?

Well yeah, I can see where that could happen... if no one in the car had any reason to suspect anyone else in the car, they would be looking around outside the car trying to figure out what was happening... or they would be ducking down hiding from flying bullets and not paying attention to the driver...

How about the hundreds of witnesses that day whose eyes were riveted upon JFK? No one from any angle saw the driver draw a weapon and shoot JFK?

Ahem....

"On 3-12-92 I interviewed one Fred Newcomb, who researched, along with co-author Perry Adams, a book entitled "Murder from Within," © 1975 derived from original research done in Dallas in 1968 when the memories of witnesses were still fresh.

Mr. Newcomb felt his book made the case for the limousine driver shooting JFK so well that he sent copies of the book to the 1975 Congress and Senate because he felt he would be guilty of "obstruction of justice" if he did not do so.

These are the witnesses whose statement to Mr. Newcomb and sometimes the Warren commission included the words "in the car."

1. Mary Moorman - school teacher standing next to Jean Hill. She said she saw Greer shooting back but thought he was shooting back at the assassin. SOURCE: Warren Commission and taped interview by Fred Newcomb.

2. Jean Hill - Jean Hill saw what happened too, but when she tried to bring up the subject of a gun being fired in the car, Senator Arlen Specter (a 33rd degree Mason) would change the subject or say "it's time for a cup of coffee."

3. Austin P. Miller - Texas Louisiana Freight Bureau, who stood on the railway overpass overlooking Elm Street was asked by Arlen Specter where the shots came from: His reply was "from right there in the car." Senator Specter just went on to the next question, never asking Miller any specifics. From: Warren Report, New York Times edition, p. 82.

4. Clinton J. Hill. Jacqueline Kennedy's bodyguard reports in Vol. II, pp 138-139 of the Warren Commission Volumes: "I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, and ran to the presidential limousine. Just as I reached it, there was another sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object...it seemed to have some type of echo."

5. Hugh Betzner - Had picture published in Life magazine and was standing right next to the drivers side of the motorcade: He saw a gun in the hand of one of the secret service agents and heard a sound "like firecrackers going off in the car." Link to Betzner’s official statement: http://www.jfk-online.com/betzner.html Source: taped interview with Fred Newcomb.

6. Senator Ralph Yarborough - 3rd car back "Smelled gunpowder in the car." (statement made to press but not to Warren Commission) He was challenged by Newcomb on the phone and he then said "I must have smelled it coming down from the book depository"
http://community-2.webtv.net/Larry762/fontcolor3300FF/page4.html

Nose witnesses

It is reasonable to assume that if a gun were fired in the limousine, then there would be the smell of gunsmoke. There was and Mr. Newcomb located 6 nose witnesses:

1.Senator Ralph Yarborough

2. Patrolman Joe W. Smith

3. Congressman Ray Roberts

4. Thomas C. Clifford

5. Elizabeth Cabell, wife of Dallas Mayor.

6. Robert W. Jackson

Ed. Note: Elizabeth Cabell was the wife of Earle Cabell, mayor of Dallas. His brother, Charles was fired by JFK for his failure in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

This just gets siller(sic) and sillier as you get backed into a corner.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Ok, *that* was just too funny! Where am I getting "backed into a corner"? Jeez, get delusional much?? Now who is getting sillier by the minute?

The CT community has had 44 years to prove their case. Why can't they?

Official obstruction?? :shrug: Like the Plame outing and the 9-11 Commission??

Seriously now, don't embarrass yourself further, ok? It didn't take me long to look these few things up, hence my advice to "do some more reading"...

Now you tell me: Why do you put so much faith in Arlen Specter and his "magic bullet" theory, or ANY republican "investigation" and their results?? You remind me of the 9-11 "debunkers" {snicker} who cling to the NIST report or 9-11 Commission report like it's a bible, even though it's been proven to be a whitewash & coverup...

My final words to you are this: Republicans are liars. That's who they are and what they do. Don't believe ANYTHING they tell you, period. Especially if they are investigating their own... Question authority, and always, always, ALWAYS question republicans...

PEACE!

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

68. Nice try...

My source is Vincent Bugliosi who is, in no way, GOP.

And, as I predicted, you resort yet again to insults. You seem to be losing it. And, yes, you do seem to have a problem with logic when you advance silly theories like Greer supposedly shot JFK. It's absurd on its face. Yet you keep flogging it. Maybe you could detail exactly how this "conspiracy" involving Greer supposedly got planned. Was the other SSA also in on it or do you claim that he was distracted too? He wouldn't notice the driver pull out a silenced sidearm and kill the President of the United States? I think the better question is are YOU delusional.

Let's turn to what Betzner actually said (from your own source): "I also saw a man in either the President's car or the car behind his and someone down in one of those cars pull out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car." Nowhere does he say that he thought the driver shot JFK. And, by the way, as Kennedy is at that moment being killed by gunshots, why would it be unusual that a Secret Service Agent drew his revolver?

In the passage about Jean Hill, what possible relevance is it that Arlen Specter was a 33rd degree Mason? BTW, where is your source for the claim that Hill said ANYTHING about anyone firing a gun in the presidential limo. In fact, Jean Hill testified to the WC that she thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. On the day of the assassination, she gave a sworn statement to the DPD in which she says NOTHING like what you claim. See for yourself here: . If Hill testified to the WC in the manner you claim, please point specifically where said testimony is.

Similarly, Mary Moorman said NOTHING of the sort you claim to the WC. If she did, please point to it. What she did say to the WC (22H838 & 24H217) was that she could not tell where the shots came from.

It's pretty obvious what you did. You Googled then cited the first conspiracy sites you could find that supported your conclusion. Do you honestly think that's convincing? Do you still deny that you're a conspiracy theorist?

[SDuderstadt]

75. Here's the most ridiculous part of your post

"3. Austin P. Miller - Texas Louisiana Freight Bureau, who stood on the railway overpass overlooking Elm Street was asked by Arlen Specter where the shots came from: His reply was "from right there in the car." Senator Specter just went on to the next question, never asking Miller any specifics. From: Warren Report, New York Times edition, p. 82."

If by "Warren Report" you mean the "Warren Commission Report", you've really gone off the rails here and appear to have a huge problem with temporization. 1st, a little background. The Warren Commission submitted its report on 9/24/64. At the time, Arlen Specter was an assistant counsel to the WC. Specter was not elected to the US Senate until 1980. If you're claiming the passage actually comes from pg. 82 of the "Warren Report, New York Times Edition", are we supposed to believe that he was referred to as Senator Specter 16 years prior to his election? Or, as seems more likely, is part or all of this passage simply fabricated and someone forgot to refer to Specter as assistant counsel?

In fact, Austin Miller was questioned for the Warren Commission by David Belin, as seen below:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0118a.htm

As you can see by clicking on the link, not only was Miller not questioned by Specter, Belin did, in fact, ask Miller follow-up questions. Your claim is bullshit.

[Ghost in the Machine]

106. The only thing that's ridiculous is the fact that YOU stayed up until 1:30 AM

trying to be the "great debunker", but what's most rediculous is that you call this "my claim". Ummm, you should work more on your comprehension skills buddy... I copied~n~pasted from a WEBSITE and gave a LINK to aforementioned website. How does that make it "MY CLAIM"? You should seriously consider my earlier advice that find a new hobby... I could actually see the spittle flying from lips to your screen as you vehemently screamed your reply while typing... that vein popping out on your forehead isn't very healthy, either...

I swear you "debunkers" really crack me up. Do you have no other life to speak of? Is ALL of your time spent trying make yourself the coveted "debunker of the year"? You're not doing too well on *that* mission, are you? You can't even tell the difference between someone posting something from another source (while providing a link to that source) and someone else's own original claim, can you?

Debunkers.... :rofl: Disinformation engineers babbling utter nonsense knowingly espousing ridiculous stories .....

[SDuderstadt]

122. Look at your own post and you'll note that...

it says it was done at 2:10 AM. Then read up on DU's time system and you'll note it doesn't correspond to any local time zone but, instead, the default is GMT. Duh. I was asleep far before 1:30 AM and certainly wouldn't stay up that late responding to your nonsense.


I also find it interesting that you are trying to distance yourself from your claim and trying to hide behind your source. Are you now claiming you don't believe what you posted? Your source is, to put it mildly, goofy, easily debunked and makes you look silly. Your source "claims" Arlen Specter questioned Miller, but reading the Warren Commission transcript makes it clear that Miller was questioned by David Belin, so your source and your claim are dead wrong. Now who looks "rediculous"? And, FYI, there was no spittle flying from my lips nor did I "vehemently scream(ed) my reply when typing". I was trying to supress a laugh as I responded to your continued goofiness. By the way, for someone who claims to have a life, you sure seem to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to me.

[snooper2]

135. Actually, DU's system does correspond to a local time...

If you live in Iceland, GMT is local time...

:)

[defendandprotect]

40. This is misinformation . . .

It's late so I'm not checking for other sources on this ---
however, it looks like Specter liked the "mistake" by McClelland ---

In the film --- I think it's McDuff? --- is pointing to his right temple ---

the photos show an oddity in the right temple area ---- later covered by wax, supposedly.

McClelland was with Dr. Crenshaw who has also written a book ---

Page x . . . Foreword . . ..

"Dr. Crenshaw, as one of the surgeons treating the Pesident's wounds, saw with his own eyes that Kennedy was struck twice from the front -- once in the neck and once in the right side of his head."

Again --- Greer was checking to see if JFK had been mortally wounded yet after the last shots --- which seemingly came in a fusilade of bullets --- the last two nearly simultaneously.
Greer makes his involvement in the plot obvious by slowing down and actually braking --
that fact originally showed in the Zapruder film --- witnesses testified to it.
Greer turns to see JFK's condition ---

At any rate, the RIGHT is the universal observation of those who attended JFK ---

And, again, I'm sure some of the investigators --- aside from Poster/! have addressed this mistake.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. wow pretty amazing

What I never understand as many times as I have seen that film is why does Jackie get out of the back seat and crawl across the back of the car? Why is she moving AWAY from her husband? I never did get that.

[Harmonicaman]

8. Shes reaching

to grab the secret service guys hand to pull him onto the back of the car

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. But were they there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=71455&mesg_id=71455

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. No she isn't. She is retrieving a piece of his skull.

She never touched the SS agent. When the fatal shot happened, a large piece of JFK's skull landed on the rear deck of the car. Jackie crawled back to get it.

[H2O Man]

18. Correct.

[hlthe2b]

21. Yes... How poignant to realize that fact...

That Jackie went through all that, yet remained sane and raised two great kids, is amazing.

[AntiFascist]

55. Can someone explain the physics behind...

how a piece of skull would fly backwards?

[benEzra]

66. Pressure effects, almost exclusively.

Go here:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/exhibit-3.html

and click on the photos of the tomato being shot with a low-velocity rifle bullet (from a .22, a squirrel hunting caliber). The effect would be more pronounced with a higher velocity rifle as was used. If the impact were off-center, then the result would be to one side in addition to front and back.

You see less of this effect with the frozen fruit in those photos, because ice exhibits crystalline behavior with less hydrodynamic effects, and none whatsoever with the playing card photos.

Another high-speed photo showing the same effect is here (pellet from a BB gun hits an egg, traveling from left to right; note the fragments going back to the left, and the pellet leaving the frame to the right).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nebarnix/308416851/in/set-72157594248654650/

[AntiFascist]

76. Suppose for a moment that the entrance wound on the back of the head...

was from a separate gunshot. Suppose that a bullet entered the front of the skull angled upward. Your explanation above could explain why material exploded out of the front of the skull, while the bullet itself caused a large gaping wound where a large piece of the skull was knocked to the back of the car by the intertial force. The missing frames of the Zapruder film show the extent of the wound caused from the final shot.

[HooptieWagon]

13. Shock and fear

Same reason people run when they're on fire, or stampeding cattle run off a ledge into a ravine. When faced with a shocking event (such as your husband's head exploding in your lap) the cognitive area of the brain shuts down, and a base survival instinct takes over. That instinct is to flee, even if fleeing places you in greater danger. Training (such as basic training in the army) can overcome this instinct, but it is not 100%, and anyway I doubt Jackie had any sort of training like that. Basically, she panicked, and her survival instinct to flee the horror took over.

[A HERETIC I AM]

22. See my post above.

It is well documented why Jackie crawled onto the rear deck of the Limo.

I will grant you the "shocking event" concept, however. She saw a hunk of her husbands head fly away and went to get it, perhaps in that split second thinking it was the right thing to do, as if he would need it.

[Individualist]

23. I also believe that is the explanation

Fight-or-flight reaction. The horror she was experiencing was too much for her mind to cope with, and instinct took over. I believe the explanations about trying to help Agent Hill get onto the car or trying to retrieve part of Kennedy's scalp were concocted lest ignorant people try to imply that her behavior was cowardly.

"We have a natural defence mechanism when facing danger which makes us react in one of two ways. We either turn and face the danger, being prepared to fight or we react in fear and prepare ourselves to run - the “Fight or Flight” reaction.

How our mind responds to the “Fight or Flight” reaction:
Inability to concentrate
Confused
Negative thoughts
Forgetful
Making more mistakes
Decreased performance
Increased caution"
http://www.brad.ac.uk/admin/counselling/leaflets/anxiety.php

[AntiFascist]

56. Interesting meme you are trying to propagate, eventhough SS testimony...

seems to contradict it:

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, seen in films and photos in Dealey Plaza climbing onto the rear of the limousine, stated in his Warren Commission testimony,
"Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car."

The piece of skull clearly flew backward.

[pocoloco]

25. She is trying to retrieve pieces of his skull!

The result of a shot fired form a forward position.

[defendandprotect]

42. BECAUSE her husband's head is flying off the back of the car --- !!!!

Much of his head is GONE --- !!!

[mitchum]

47. "She was hauling ass...and I don't blame her" - Lenny Bruce

[notadmblnd]

49. I had heard one time that she was scrambling

to collect his brain that just been blown out of his head.

[Bonobo]

7. True. But Kennedy was already dead at that point. If you look closely...

You will see that Jackie whipped out a chromium razor blade in frame 53 and silently cut out his still-beating heart. So he was already dead!

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. No it was LBJ in the trunk

with a special gun that shot a bullet that traveled in a circle. :)

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. Has this been hiding in plain sight all these years?

It really does look intriguing.

[WileEcoyote]

36. Yes

Without a doubt the limo driver killed the prez. He was the insurance shooter making his play with full knowledge of there being no one looking at him or suspecting he. Was the driver after all.

Evil as he was I'll give him this much credit: He was one helluva an expert assassin. Faster than Clint Esatwood in the movies. Check out who he is/was and if he is left handed.

Left handed? You've got a murderer for sure.

[jimshoes]

14. Do not get your hopes up on this

This illusion has been shown to be the top of Roy Kellerman's head in blow ups of the frames in question. (Roy Kellerman is seated next to the driver of the limo, Bill Greer)

[Gloria]

69. I went the assasination Museum site a couple of days and found out

that they actually have cut a few frames of the fild that were supposedly too graphic to see (I think that was the reason)....I wonder if they have been cut from a lot of the film clips on the net??

[jimshoes]

70. Yes, I believe the clip that they show

has some of the frames removed because they are quite gory. Copies of the Zapruder film (a 26 second home movie) is probably one of the most studied pieces of film ever taken. Some assassination researchers are not convinced it is the actual footage while other swear that it is. (Several original frames have been lost to technician errors when Time Life owned the film) There were copies of the film made directly from the camera original by the FBI that show the film without any breaks or cuts. Those copies still exist if I'm not mistaken. Several years ago a company named MPI Teleproductions put out a DVD called "Image Of An Assassination" in which the camera original was photographed and digitally cleaned up supposedly without adding any artifacts that shouldn't belong there. It's a decent effort by MPI although it does have its share of flaws.

[AntiFascist]

77. If I'm not mistaken, a DUer once posted a link to a version of the Zapruder film...

that did show much more. I was very shocked at how it appeared that the skull was splayed open. Also, it may have shown the Limo coming to more of a halt, and a longer period of time while the driver had turned around.

[jimshoes]

78. Here is a link to site that has all the frames

of the Zapruder film. You can view each one separately or download the whole thing and watch it as a movie.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

[AntiFascist]

79. There is something obscuring part of Jackie in the frames after the final blast...

what I recall seeing was much more detailed and less overexposed.

Also, what is this guy in the foreground holding/pointing in this frame (the point where some speculate Connally was shot)and why does his hand look so strange over several frames?

[jimshoes]

80. It's possible someone put a link to one

of the versions of the DVD I mentioned earlier, "Image Of An Assassination". There is a zoomed in view of Jackie and the President in very graphic detail. I'm sorry I do not know how to get it from the DVD to say, Youtube or something like that. I'd almost bet that's what you remember seeing. If you have a chance, either buy the DVD or borrow it from the library. Or possibly you might find it on line somewhere.

[Gloria]

91. What is that in front of Jackie/Connolly's forehead? It looks like a baseball or

something...did that guy in the white shirt in the foreground throw it? Or was he just waving??

Damned, I lived through this AND have read and researched, but never noticed this odd "white ball" in this frame...

[AntiFascist]

100. That's a reflection off of his forehead...

and the subject of the OP refers to a reflection off of the head of the passenger sitting next to the driver.

I'm referring to more subtle image manipulation like blurring and over-exposure of specific spots on the film during printing of copies of the film that may have caused the odd artifacts in the wound area after the final blast.

There are reports that prints of the film were sent immediately to a CIA lab after the assassination, but multiple copies may have been made and saved beforehand.

As for the man in the foreground, I don't know of any theories involving him, but what better way to dispute conspiracy theories than by filming one of the gunmen and then blurring out the evidence?

[jimshoes]

105. The fellow in the foreground of that frame

I believe is only known as the "Cuban looking man" and is often talked about in conjunction with the "Umbrella Man" because there is a picture of him and the umbrella man sitting on the curb together just after the motorcade has passed by. It has been theorized by some researchers that he may have been a signal man for an assassination team that day. No one knows for sure though. I'll see if I can dig up the photo of the Cuban and TUM.
edit for pic of "Cuban looking man"

[AntiFascist]

115. Interesting, apparently the "umbrella man" testified to the Warren Commission...

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/articles/umbrella.php

that he was there to heckle Kennedy through the use of the umbrella (apparently as a not so subtle reference to Neville Chamberlain?).

According to this DU post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/19_umbrella.html

Lyndon Johnson, in the process of escalating the Vietnam War, the most colossal American foreign policy mistake of the Twentieth Century is said to have told aides that they (his political opponents) weren't going to make a "Chamberlain Umbrella Man out of me". LBJ's desire not to have the umbrella hung around his neck eventually cost the lives of almost 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese.

[SDuderstadt]

125. Exactly!

And confirmed in Buglosi's book!

[defendandprotect]

147. And the Umbrella Man/Dart theory shouldn't be overlooked ---

QUOTE Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975 (1). He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart, but that it was altered during the Bethesda autopsy. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Many researchers think that since such a weapon existed and its operation is consistent with the actions of Umbrella man, this theory can not be ignored completely. UNQUOTE


A lot of info on the film is perhaps lost in these threads ---

[Gloria]

92. Here's a BitTorrent for the "Image of An Assassination " documentary...

Image Of An Assassination

http://www.mybittorrent.com/info/430265/

The direct link may not work....plug the number into Bitcomet search or www.Bitcomet Home>movies\#430265

If you can't get there, google "Image of An Assassination" on Scroogle and go down a way to the Bitcomet link....I'm not sure if it's free or not...

[defendandprotect]

145. The Zapruder film is doctored to support the official story . . ..

Immediately, in LIFE Magazine, two frames were switched, to reverse the movement of JFK's head!
FBI was responsible for that --- though LIFE may have been cooperating?

See: James Fetzer
"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"

[teach1st]

16. Pretty risky

It would have been pretty operationally risky to involve someone who might possibly have been in full view of Connelly and Jackie as he shot. Besides, to the naked and untrained eye, doesn't the head wound seems inconsistent with a shot from the driver?

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. It's not just risky, it's nonsense.

The driver did not turn and shoot him. I don't know what the other folks and the OP seem to think they are seeing, but it isnt the driver turning and shooting him. There were HUNDREDS of witnesses and no one has ever suggested this before that i am aware of. No one.

[WileEcoyote]

37. Not at all

Coincides exactly with Kennedy getting half his head blown off. Exact timing in fact.

Without a doubt the Limo driver killed the prez...

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Shouldn't you wait until April 1st to post this?

[Kingofalldems]

29. There was a book out years ago claiming this

It was debunked.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. And Saddaam had WMDs!

Oh wait, . .

[Gman]

30. Back and to the left

Back and to the left... as Kevin Costner says in JFK. The opposite direction he would have gone with a shot from the driver.

[Historic NY]

33. It appears he is reacting to the sound of the shots........

it looks more like a natural movement because he quickly re-focus's on driving. Perhaps he was looking for Clint Hill the SS Agent who jumped onto the car. I believe this was a replacement driver as the former appears to have died a month or so before the Dallas trip. To turn and fire backwards over your shoulder while driving would be some feat and then hitting your mark w/o hitting others. The standard agent weapon would have been a 38 special snub nose revolver, perhaps a Colt. These hardly carried ammunition or the velocity to do massive head trama.

President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally, sitting with his wife in front of the Kennedys in the limousine, both turned abruptly from looking to their left to looking to their right. Connally immediately recognized the sound of a high powered rifle. "Oh, no, no, no," he said as he turned further right, and then started to turn left, attempting to see President Kennedy behind him.

According to the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, as President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right, a shot entered his upper back, penetrated his neck, and exited his throat. He raised his clenched fists up to his neck and leaned forward and to his left, as Mrs. Kennedy put her arms around him in concern. Governor Connally also reacted, as the same bullet penetrated his back, chest, right wrist, and left thigh. He yelled, "My God, they are going to kill us all.

source wikipedia

[H2O Man]

50. Right.

No matter if a person believes all the shots came from behind, or if some may have come from in front, there is really little doubt that the driver believed at the moment that he slowed the vehicle that he was driving into a trap. It is possible that the echo of a shot confused him, or that he was correct in believing shots were coming from a forward direction. Either way, he slowed down temporarily as a result of hearing shots, and not for any other reason.

[Octafish]

90. Vincent Palamara is the expert on what the Secret Service did and failed to do 22 Nov 1963.

Palamara has interviewed scores of former SS agents from the Dallas trip and that era.

2) WILLIAM R. GREER- LIMO: slows limo, looks back at JFK twice, disobeys Kellerman, etc.

It seems the driver was aware of gunfire from ahead. They were in the freaking lead car. Targets. Perhaps, upon hearing Gov Connally, he thought they were going to get him, too.

Seriously doubt Greer would shoot the president. The guy who's actions raise suspicions was Emory P. Roberts.

The Shift Leaders of the WHD (SAIC Assistants):
1) ATSAIC EMORY P. ROBERTS in command of FOLLOW-UP CAR in Dallas:
order<..> agent Henry J. Rybka back from rear of limo at Love
Field, orders agents not to move after first shot on Elm Street,
recalls agent John Ready during/ shortly after one of the head
shots. Usurps Kellerman's authority at Parkland Hospital of unknown causes in the late '60's].

Recently discovered videotape from Love Field showing Agent Henry J. Rybka's dismay at being ordered OFF President Kennedy's limo by Roberts:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&q=secret-service+jfk&total=80&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Rybka was left behind at Love Field. "And the most amazing thing of all," Palamara continued, "is the fact that there is not one report, not two reports, but three reports after the fact, placing Rybka in the followup car! But he wasn't there! Again --- either they assumed he did hop into the car, or there was a coverup. Take your pick..."

SOURCE:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/20th_Issue/oview3.html

I know this is old news for you, my Friend, but so many of my neighbors have never heard peep about this I get redundant.

[H2O Man]

104. It's important

to repeat things on a forum like DU. I find myself saying some things over and over and over, regarding the Plame scandal -- and that is a "current event," while Dallas was 44 years ago.

[defendandprotect]

148. Exactly --- and there's a lot of info buried in this thread which should have more visibility ---

[Bright Eyes]

38. You've got to be kidding me....

This video has been analyzed by tens of thousands of professionals, and this is the first time anyone has brought it up? Please.

And yes, i do believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But the Limo driver? Don't think so.

[defendandprotect]

39. Greer --- the driver --- was obviously in on the plot . . .

HOWEVER --- and I'm not able to really see your film this evening --- Greer is without doubt ensuring that the president has been hit. He not only isn't accelerating the car, he STOPS the car --- has his foot on the brake at one point. They took this out of some of the film copies, as I recall hearing.


There's a book written on this theory that Greer shot at the president ---
but the actual shot came from JFK's right, moving JFK and brain matter to the LEFT ---
striking the police officer behind the car to the LEFT.

That would have been an impossible shot for Greer ---

MEANWHILE . . . everyone should understand that the Zapruder film was planned ---
and was used after being "doctored" to create a cover for the official story.

Zapruder has some odd connections --- but made a lot of $ on the film --
Some think he didn't actually take the film; there seems to be a dual "filming" operation going on somehwhere near him, under more cover.

[windbreeze]

41. The one thing that always interested me....

was the fact that no one...not one person...ever mentioned the possible use of silencers that day...when shots fired were being counted...if you wanted to deliver the blow that killed K w/o drawing attention to yourself....wouldn't you use a silencer?...that way, you could have been standing just about anywhere...like behind the fence on the knoll???...most likely no one would have noticed you in the excitement of watching the motorcade, or in the resulting confusion...wasn't the route changed at the last minute that morning? Why? they weren't supposed to have gone down that particular road, they were supposed to have used a different one, why were the SS agents told to get off the back of the car???..Greer was THE SS agent in charge of getting that limo transported to D, and making sure everything worked right...as he was responsible for it's disposal after the fact.....isn't he the same one that Johnson was interacting with(wink/smile) on the plane back to DC??...Didn't JConnally make some comment about how OMG,they are going to kill us both, after the one shot hit him?...didn't he also turn Republican later on, and make out quite well in his future endeavors?....

There were 3 men arrested in the Dal-Tec building that day, (and I believe they were seen entering that building with what appeared to be a rifle in their possession)...but they were let go...It also seems there were two prior attempts on K's life...one in Miami, one in Chicago, both failed or were called off....so Dallas was the we must succeed destination....and succeed they did, thereby setting the stage for what goes on, right now, this day...Who was it that said, if the American people only knew what we did, there would be chaos in the streets?..I believe that Oswald did NOT kill K...and that IS why...he in turn, had to be killed....ever wonder how many people in D that day, had to be complicit, in order for that assassination to have been carried off w/o a hitch?...I also read that JOK had her own private investigation done...but what she found out, would NOT be disclosed for 50 years...wouldn't it be sad, if she could have saved her son's life by telling all? Two families...both from the upper class of the NE...wonder how far some would be willing to carry a rivalry if one existed? wb

[AntiFascist]

64. I would recommend reading "Farewell America" for the bigger picture....

http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195865721&sr=8-1

Supposedly written by those behind Robert Kennedy's investigation as well as French and other foreign intelligence, and you might want to read through the reviews and blurbs about the book. This book was originally published in France, and it supposedly was to be used to promote Robert Kennedy's run for president. After Robert Kennedy's assassination the book's US distribution was cut off. It tends to blame "The Establishment" for JFK's assassination with themes that are all too familiar to DUers and fans of Octafish's posts.

"...but its U.S. distribution was rapidly curtailed after RFK's death. The authors ("James Hepburn" is a pseudonym) conducted clandestine research among KGB and Interpol agents and French petroleum espionage specialists and relied on a rare, unmodified print of the famed Zapruder film. The book seethes with aggrieved passion in defending the Kennedys and their ideals, and seeks to defrock the "lone gunman" theory of JFK's assassination. Most of the text is a damning jeremiad, portraying pre-1964 America as a vicious, discriminatory oligarchy controlled by alliances of Big Steel and Big Oil, the military and organized crime, which all had reason to fear JFK's proposed reforms."

"It shows how the Status Quo is protected by the Big Bankers, Big Lawyers, Big Military, Big Business, etc. And it's NOT a coincidence that The Warren Commission had men from all of these big "establishments" protecting their respective establishments."

"President Kennedy wanted peace with the Soviets and Cuba. The CIA, The Military, The Mafia, and the Anti Castro Cuban exiles despised him for that. They wanted war, even if it meant a nuclear war."

"This book was CENSORED for many years. That alone is reason to read it. Basically it tries to say that big OIL did him in."

"This book could not be distributed in the US at the time it was published in Europe for obvious reasons: the author had seen a copy of the Zapruder film, which contradicts fundamentally the `findings' of the Warren Commission. The Zapruder film was not publicly available at the time."


"Perhaps it's "dated", but that's what makes it all the more valuable a document historically.
And indeed it is, as Bobby and Jackie secretly cooperated with the writing of "Farewell America"...

No WONDER you couldn't get it here for 40 years! It must have SOME validity!"

"The fact that this book was researched and written so close to the time that the assassination and 'coverup' happened is the most compelling reason for reading Farewell America."

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Well!

There you have it! Case solved. And to think the video of the murder was right there all along.

Good work, Matlock!

[Kingofalldems]

45. On Coast to Coast this morning--the grassy knoll shooter

or a guy who claims to be, is in prison right now. His name is Files or Pheils. There is a documentary coming out on this.

[defendandprotect]

71. In other circles, Tippit has been mentioned as the shooter ---

Malcolm Wallace --- LBJ's handy dandy murderous aide was also in Dealey Plaza ---
his fingerprint is on the "sniper's nest" cartons ---

Obviously, he at least set those up --- !!!

[SDuderstadt]

73. Please prove this ridiculous assertion

If Malcom Wallace's fingerprint is actually on any of the sniper's nest catrons, it should be easy to prove.

[defendandprotect]

84. Go to Barr McClellan's book ---

"Blood, Money & Power -- How LBJ Killed JFK "--- your library will have it ---

[SDuderstadt]

88. No, the operative word was PROVE

Referring me to a book by a disbarred attorney and conspiracy theorist who makes a claim but offers no proof whatsoever of his claim doesn't cut it. it also seems to indicate you have a problem with critical thinking. Do you have ANY proof of your silly claim other than McClellan's half-baked book? You don't? I didn't think so.

[defendandprotect]

96. PROVE the sun is going to come up on Monday -- What nonsense ---

Meanwhile, if you can't get to a library --

look at the website which discusses the print ---

The sum of your nonsense is that you you don't like the information ---

I'd like to see some "proof" that you understand any of the material.

[LanternWaste]

137. The poster offered you source material

The poster offered you source material. Unless you hold both every poster and yourself to the standard that every post should be as well written, well researched and cited as a master's thesis, then his source was more than sufficient.

Actually, if I recall correctly from my logic class so many years ago, the burden of proof falls on each successive critic.

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

139. Wrong...

you need to take Logic again. The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof required. If someone makes a claim, then is asked for proof of the claim, that doesn't make the person asking for proof the claimant. In fact, that's a form of logical fallacy called "trying to shift the burden of proof" to the questioner. If you read the other posts, McClellan has not only been roundly debunked, the claim is contradicted by the facts.

In other posts, it is claimed that the Warren Commission noted an unidentified fingerprint developed from one of the cartons in the snipers's nest. It is further claimed that, some years later, a fingerprint technician named Darby matched the unidentified fingerprint from the scene to the fingerprint of one Malcolm Wallace, an associate of LBJ. At least one post implied that the Warren Commission cknowledged this, which doesn't even make sense, given their eventual conclusion. This was a basis for Barr McClellan to claim that Malcolm Wallace was, in fact, one of JFK's assassins.

The problem with this claim is it starts with a lie and the whole thing falls apart from there. 20 indentifiable fingerprints and 8 palm prints were developed at the scene, for a total of 28 prints. ALL except ONE matched Oswald, other book depository employees and two law enforcement employees involved in processing the print evidence. Seems pretty damning, right? Except for the fact that the unidentified print was a PALM PRINT, not a fingerprint. As I stated earlier, once the initial lie is exposed, the rest of the claim falls apart.

One post claimed that CE exhibit 29 was the infamous unidentified "fingerprint", which is completely bogus. Follow the link provided below and you'll see that CE 29 is actually an image of Marina Oswald's passport. How anyone can confuse a passport with a fingerprint is beyond me.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0081a.htm


One post linked to CE 3131, asserting that it supported the fingerprint claim being made. The problem with this claim is that it is actually a letter from the FBI to WC General Counsel Rankin stating that all prints are matched to the people stated above with the exception of a PALM PRINT. Again, I don't understand how anyone can confuse a palm print with a fingerprint. The real delicious irony here is that the poster linked to evidence that actually refutes their own claim. And people wonder why I don't respect CT's or their lack of critical thinking skills. Follow the link below to CE 3131 and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm


The only thing the post got right is that CE 1301 IS, in fact, a picture of the sniper's nest. Why the poster linked to this is unclear, unless the poster somehow believes we won't notice the difference between a palm print and a fingerprint. In other words, the claims mixes in one true statement, then combines it with several false statements in order to allege something that is not remotely true. But, then again, we've come to expect that from CT's. Follow the link to CE 1301 below and you'll see the ONLY thing the poster actually got right.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm


P.S. Before you conclude that I must be a RWer, I'll match my liberal credentials against anyone here. To those liberals who claim I must be a RWer because I "support the official story", I must not have gotten the memo that said in order to be a true liberal, one has to abandon critical thinking.

[defendandprotect]

94. Additionally, this website discusses the Malcom Wallace fingerprint ---

http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/part1aa.htm

Just happened to come across this website while checking something else . . .

QUOTE ---

A 14 Point Fingerprint Match Links Johnson

Malcom Wallace, in 1951, had already been convicted of murdering Doug Kinser. With Johnson's legal assistance, i.e. his personal attorney John Cofer, Wallace would walk away with a five year suspended sentence for murder...

According to the Warren Report t, there was a single fingerprint lifted from the carton designated "A" in the "sniper's nest" which could not be linked with Oswald, any other employee of the Texas School Book Depository, or any law enforcement officer that had handled the carton. The fingerprint remains in the National Archives, labeled "Unknown."

However, by 1998, a 14 point match with Malcolm Wallace's prints would be made, thereby directly linking Johnson to the assassination. (Wallace's prints were, of course, on record after his conviction.)

On March 9, 1998, A. Nathan Darby, A.L.C.E., a Certified Latent Fingerprint Examiner, and a member of the International Association for Identification, signed a sworn affidavit stating that he found a positive match between the "Unknown" print from Carton "A" and the 1951 print of Mac Wallace.

For easier comparison, the "Unknown' print from the sniper's nest on the right has been duplicated and superimposed in red over the Wallace print on the left. The match becomes obvious even to the layman.

UNQUOTE


NOTE ALSO: THIS PRINT BY wALLACE WAS MATCHED TO HIS PRINT CARD FROM THE kINSER MURDER IN 1951

[defendandprotect]

95. AND, btw, just for the record, Barr McClellan is the father of Scott McClellan ---

[SDuderstadt]

97. This was roundly debunked already....

First of all, as seen in the relevant portion of the Warren Commission Report below, the unidentified print was a PALM PRINT, not a fingerprint. How someone can believe a palm print is a fingerprint is beyond me. A "print" can refer to either a palm or a finger print. If you have ANY proof it was a fingerprint, please provide it. It certainly does not, as you claim, appear in the Warren Commission Report.

Here's what Darby himself said about the matter: Darby told Vincent Bugliosi that he had been given "two fingerprints, one from a card, the other a latent. It was all blind. I didn't know and wasn't told who they belonged to (it was much later, he said, that he heard Malcolm Wallace's name mentioned), although I recognized the layout of the card (he said all identifying features had been blacked out) as that of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I wasn't given any palm print. They were both fingerprints. Of course, you can't compare a palm print with a fingerprint." (Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pgs. 922-923).

In other words, Darby was duped...and, by extension, so were you.



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr6.htm#p5

"In considering the possibility of accomplices at the window, the Commission evaluated the significance of the presence of fingerprints other than Oswald's on the four cartons found in and near the window. Three of Oswald's prints were developed on two of the cartons. In addition a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on the 4 cartons. Moreover, prints were developed which were considered as not identifiable, i.e., the quality of the print was too fragmentary to be of value for identification purposes.

As has been explained in chapter IV, the Commission determined that none of the warehouse employees who might have customarily handled these cartons left prints which could be identified. This was considered of some probative value in determining whether Oswald moved the cartons to the window. All but 1 of the 25 definitely identifiable prints were the prints of 2 persons an FBI employee and a member of the Dallas Police Department who had handled the cartons during the course of the investigation. One identifiable palmprint was not identified."

If that's not enough, the following link will take you to CE3131, a letter from the FBI to General Counsel Rankin noting that the only print remaining to be identified was a PALM PRINT. So much for your goofy claim.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm

[defendandprotect]

109. Mcadams fools you again . . ..

Here's a quote from the Warren Commission Report --- Page 130 . . .

The MALCOLM WALLACE CARD PRINT MATCHES WITH Warren Commmission Exhibit 29 ---


"The Cartons were forwarded to the FBI in Washington. Sebastian F. Latona, Supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section, TESTIFIED that 20 identifiable fingerprints and 8 palmprints were developed on those cartons."


AND . . . in the back of the McClellan book you will find reproductions of Warren Commission Exhibits -- showing where the fingerprints/palmprints were found --
Exhibit A of
WC Exhibit 1301 and 3131

Shocking tho it may be, I take it for granted that someone who is qualified as a fingerprint analyst can actually tell the difference between a palmprint and a fingerprint ---
In fact, I think most of us can ---

The FINGERPRINT -- WC Exhibit 29 -- can be viewed in the back of Barr McClellan's book.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Ummm, what does McAdams have to do with it, other than...

being a link to the the actual Warren Commission Report?

Did you even bother to follow the link? For your information, CE 29 is Marina Oswald's passport and not, as you claim, the "fingerprint" (see below). Either you are simply lying or easily deluded. It really doesn't matter which.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0081a.htm



If you bothered to read what I posted, I ALREADY linked to CE 3131 which is a LETTER written by the FBI to General Counsel Rankin informing him that the only unidentified print was a PALM PRINT, not a fingerprint, as you claim. Since you apparently can't even follow simple directions, I'll post it again so that you, as well as other readers, can easily see that your own source CONTRADICTS your claim. I always love it when CT's go AHA, then provide evidence that actually debunks their own claim.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm

The only thing you got remotely right is that CE 1301 is a picture of the sniper's nest, but so what? As noted earlier, there is NO unidentified fingerprint, as you claim, but an unidentified palm print, which you would know if you bothered to read your own sources. In other words, the claim about Malcolm Wallace is totally bogus, so you are either easily duped or are being intellectually dishonest deliberately. What you are doing is mixing actual facts (like a quote from the Warren Commission report that merely establishes that identifiable palm and finger prints were developed from the cartons in the sniper's nest), and splicing in your nonsense concerning Malcolm Wallace and trying to make it look like the Warren Commission agreed with your goofy claim. They certainly did not. It is no surprise that Sebastian Latona testified that 20 identifiable fingerprints and 8 palm prints were developed from the cartons. But NOWHERE in the Warren Commission Report does it mention an unidentified fingerprint at all, let alone one that matches Malcolm Wallace's. As I pointed out earlier, Darby was merely sent two fingerprints in a blind manner and asked if they matched. The problem is that NEITHER one of the fingerprints was from the Warren Commission. You need to stop lying.

[defendandprotect]

120. Obviously, you're not up to this debate re information nor intentions ---

[SDuderstadt]

123. I see....

wave the CT white flag and declare victory as you retreat. Don't you hate it when you get refuted with actual facts?

[Samantha]

107. God, what an excellent book, everyone should read it

I am going to find the link about the report I wrote on it.

Here you go:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Samantha/17

[defendandprotect]

110. Yes . . . it is a fantastic book --- but I'm not sure we survived the JFK murder --- !!!!

Jack Ruby keep recommending that people read a particular book about Johnson --
I actually never got to read it, yet!!!

But many Texans knew about this man ---
and a lot in Washington, DC knew about him ---
unfortunately, Madelaine Brown says that the LBJ VP spot was arranged . . .
I think she says by Joe Kennedy, Sr . . . and . . . ????
I'll have to watch her tape again --- !!!

Robert Caro wrote about him --- and HINTED at some of this --- but considering the weight of the truth, Caro did very little to really let us know who this man was.

Imagine the times . . . both LBJ was able to keep at least one "illegitimate" child -- a son --
by Madelaine Brown secret for decades ---

Sen. Strom Thurmond was also keep the existence of an "illegitimate" and black child unknown for
more than a half century!!

[Crabby Appleton]

82. Tippet in unit #78 cleared a call at 12:20 in South Oak Cliff

on Bonnie View Rd. in his usual patrol area, approximately 7.5 miles from Dealey Plaza.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=4100+Bonnie+View+Rd,+dallas+tx&ie=UTF8&ll=32.74166,-96.775131&spn=0.272025,0.490952&z=11&om=1

Tippet could not have gotten into Dealey Plaza and been in position to be a shooter by 12:30pm.

[defendandprotect]

85. That's an interesting counter to the Tippet suggestion . . .

I'll try to track where that info came from and feed back your info ---

Tippet does turn out to be rather a suspicious character --- however, no one can be in two

places at the same time.

Thanks ---

[baldguy]

46. Jackie didn't notice a handgun going off 6 ft from her head?

Connelly & his wife didn't notice?


Or were they all paid off by the mob or LBJ or Castro?

[LeftHander]

48. Watch only the driver at normal speed...and you will see it...

If you think of the motions it fits perfectly....His right hand is on the wheel, takes his left hand and points the gun just over his over his right shoulder. At that close of range a point and shoot movement would work.The women were already freaking out as their husbands were hit.

The gun would be just peeking over the top of his right arm extended to the steering wheel. A few frames later the front seat has gunshot smoke in it.

I am afraid this is very amazing footage.

A .38 belly holstered with hollowpoint would make the damage look high velocity and fragment the bullet into tiny pieces.

[CT_Progressive]

51. Sorry, I don't see it at all, not even close.

At 1:58 going into 1:59, is where we first see JFK's head begin to "explode". You'll notice in that frame, there is no plume of smoke from the direction of the driver, no flash of fire from a muzzle of a gun in the car - nothing at all indicating the driver fired a weapon. Just red/pink mist coming FROM JFK's head and moving FORWARD towards the front of the car.
In the next frame, the cloud of blood-mist is fully expanded, again, in FRONT of JFK.
In the next frame, the car's forward motion brings JFK thru that cloud of blood-mist.

It is patently obvious by watching 1:58 thru 2:00 that JFK is clearly shot from behind.

Case (re) closed.

[WileEcoyote]

52. There may be some plausible explanation for the limo driver's actions besides murder

However the lack of flash or smoke from a firearm doesn't rule out a gunshot.

Even in 1963 they still had suppressors which stifled sound, muzzle smoke and flame. In fact no assassin would have considered killing someone in such a public way without these.

[CT_Progressive]

98. That still doesn't account fot the blood spatter moving FORWARD

That is simply not possible unless the shot came from behind.

[LSK]

53. The timing is off

The driver appears to have turned back to driving and then Kennedy gets hit

[ms.smiler]

59. LSK, please check frames 312 & 313

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

The driver had actually turned and was facing President Kennedy at the moment he was shot. After the bullet struck the President, the driver turned to the left to look at the roadway and the car increases speed. The driver facing the President in the moment he was shot would fit if the driver was the assasin. I will also consider the possibility that perhaps such an action on the part of the driver could have been a prompt for the second assasin if the first shot failed.

[defendandprotect]

72. Yeah, Greer sees that JFK is still not fatally wounded . . he brakes...

and then the shots that killed JFK ---

[SDuderstadt]

74. What bullshit....

and you know what Greer was thinking how, exactly?

[defendandprotect]

83. THAT is what was clear on the tape and from Jean Hill --- Greer STOPPED the car ---

he turned to look at JFK --- and AFTER the shots which fatally wounded JFK ---
Greer accelerated.

Evidently the original Zapruder film did show the BRAKE lights ---
evidently, that has been removed.

HOWEVER . . . AGAIN . . We have Jean Hill's testimony on those facts ---

[SDuderstadt]

86. Let me make this clearer

No one is disputing that the limo slowed and/or stopped. What I am taking issue with is WHY this happened. Do you have ANY evidence at all that Greer did this to make sure that JFK was dead? You don't? You mean it's supposition? That's my point.

[defendandprotect]

111. Let's see . . . shots are being fired and GREER STOPS THE CAR . . . ????

What might that signal?

Greer was certainly part of the plot to ensure that JFK didn't survive his trip to Texas.

And here's a note on Greer from "Hightreason I" by Livingstone . . . p.22

"We know that Bill Greer, the driver of the limousine, STARED over his shoulder at Kennedy for a long time, with his foot on the brakes, DURING THE SHOOTING UNTIL THE FINAL HEADSHOTS WERE FIRED.30
It is difficult to forget the laugh on Greer's face as he left his questioning by the Warren
Commission with Clint Hill and Roy Kellerman. That laugh was captured for all time by the camera."

Footnote 30:--
"Farewell America" 358-9, 296; Shaw 175 on Greer's looking back.
This is clear in the Zapruder film. Manchester 157.
Picture of Greer laughing is on page 124 of Thompson.


ADDITIONALLY .... "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs -- p.12

"Driver Greer said . . . . . . . . .
he caught a glimpse of Connolly starting to slump over.
He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other.
Greer said that after the second noise and a GLANCE over his right shoulder at Connolly,
he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine BRAKE LIGHTS
remained on until after the fatal head shots to Kennedy."



AND . . . of the many, many witness reports commenting on Greer's odd reactions --

Here's a right winger you might believe --- evidently also a big "supposer" . . .

QUOTE
-Case Closed by Gerald Posner (1993), p. 234---"Incredibly, Greer, sensing that something was wrong in the back of the car, slowed the vehicle to almost a standstill."
AND
-Gerald Posner, with Dan Rather, on CBS' "Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?", 11/19/93---By turning around the second time and looking at JFK as the car slows down, Posner says that "What he has done is inadvertantly given Oswald the easiest of the three shots." UNQUOTE

[SDuderstadt]

126. Here's a simple experiment....

next time you're driving and you turn to look in the back seat at something for an extended period, keep driving and see how far you can go before you smash into something. What the hell did you expect him to do? Your claim is ludicrous and citing Livingstone's book (which I have) doesn't help your credibility.

[NoGOPZone]

54. You're a little late

This theory appeared in the Globe soon after Stone's movie came out. Also, some person whose name escapes me now toured college campuses making the same claim about thirty years ago.

[roamer65]

62. Everytime I see the Zapruder film, my heart goes out to Jackie.

She must have lived with nightmares for years being inches away from JFK when that final shot happened. That day was a tragedy for the whole world.

[defendandprotect]

112. Feel the same way ---

everytime I wish we could stop the camera ---
trust that JFK is tring to help us wherever he is ---

I, too, think that Jacqueline Kennedy bore a greater burden than most of us realized ---

And --- at this point --- nor do I trust that the JFK, Jr. "accident" was that.

[ShaneGR]

63. SS agents carried 38's back then....

A 38 doesnt remove half of someones skull from close range. That's a rifle shot.

[benEzra]

67. Everyone in the car would have realized the shot occurred from a few feet away.

If you don't believe me, go visit a shooting range and stand 3 feet away from someone shooting a .38 revolver. The difference in absolute sound intensity between a revolver 2 yards away and a rifle 50 yards away is on the order of 20^2, or 400 times the intensity, e.g. around 25 dB louder. The people in the car would have FELT the muzzle blast, and there would have been obvious powder burns (visible to the unaided eye) on the back seat. Not to mention that every other bystander standing by the side of the road would have seen the gun in the driver's hand.

Remember, the bystanders had a better view of the limo than Zapruder's camera did (given the limited resolution of the camera).

[Imagevision]

81. this is shocking!?! - after 44 years no-one else brought this to light especially

Oliver Stone after making JFK the movie that had the clearest resolution of any zapruder video shown to date. This is nothing more then a David Copperfield smoke and mirrors attempt at nothing.

[Up2Late]

87. Sorry, I don't see what you are seeing, and besides, if it came from the driver...

...the bullet would have had to pass though Jackie's head! The angle is wrong for the driver with Jackie leaning over him like she was.

No, I've mentioned this before here, get a copy of the "The Men who Killed Kennedy." It was shown on The History Channel in November 2003 in about 6 one hour parts. They got it right in part 4 or 5. I'm having trouble with the DVD copy I made, so I can't say for sure which part it was, but it was either in the part called "The Forces of Darkness" or "The Cover-up," I'll let you know if I can get this DVD working right, I'm going to try making a copy of it to see if that fixes anything.

But the shot came from the storm drain BELOW the "grassy knoll." It's had the perfect angle, it doesn't show up on any of the film that I've seen and it had an easy exit to the Rail Road Yard behind the knoll. The guy took the shot, then packed up his sniper rifle and walked away as everyone else searched the grassy knoll and the picket fence areas.

I'll post a picture again if you want to see it, the site did show up in films made after the cars had raced away.

[SDuderstadt]

89. If it came from the storm drain below the grassy knoll...

there would have been damage to the left hemisphere of JFK's brain. There wasn't. Your claim is as goofy as the claim that Greer shot JFK from the front seat. Do you guys go to school to learn how not to think critically?

[Up2Late]

93. Not at the angle that the shot would have had to been taken from, and you need to remember...

...the shot was at a persons head in a moving vehicle, so the shot was not an easy one to make and couldn't be lined up precisely like all the recent "re-enactments" show. I'm not saying it was a lucky shot, just not an easy one.

You made a lot of bad assumptions in your hasty conclusion about where I was talking about. First, I never said the shot came directly from the right, which your insulting reply implies, it came from the front and slightly to the right. Probably though the eye socket. And second, you are assuming that the "official" autopsy photos and report were real and un-doctored, they are not, that's obvious from what we can all now see in the first generation copies of the Zapruder film, something that nobody was able to see until at least 1969 at the Clay Shaw trial, which only a select few people attended. It was NEVER even seen on Television until February 1975 in Australia and March 1975 in the U.S. (see below and at the link)...

<http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ2.htm>

...The magazine did honor Zapruder's exploitation concerns — while protecting its own commercial interests — by never selling broadcast rights. The public would not see it projected until February 13, 1969, when a subpoenaed copy was shown at the Clay Shaw trial, an event recreated in the JFK movie. This copy became the source for the poor-generation bootleg copies that became a staple on the college lecture circuit, much to Life's chagrin and as Abe Zapruder had feared.

On March 6, 1975, the Zapruder film finally made its American TV premiere on Geraldo Rivera's talk show Good Night America. A month earlier, the film had first been shown on TV in Australia. In April, wishing to avoid the appearance of "suppression," Time Inc. returned the film and all commercial rights to Abraham Zapruder's heirs for one dollar. Since 1978, the original has been kept in "courtesy storage" under conservation-conditions at the National Archives.

In 1992, reacting to public pressure in the wake of the JFK movie, Congress passed the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which authorized the government to seize crucial records of the assassination. On August 1st, 1998, the government took possession of the Zapruder film already in its vaults. Compensation issues with Zapruder's heirs were resolved in 1999, resulting in a multi-million package for the family....

And also remember, most people didn't have home VCRs in March of 1975, as the Sony Betamax didn't go on sale until November of 1975. A few very wealthy people had Sony U-Matic 3/4" VCR, but they were not common, like the VHS machines are today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR
...Betamax was first to market in November 1975, and was argued by many to be technically more sophisticated,<6> although in practice few people could see the difference (television sets of the time were rather poor in quality - limited to barely 3 megahertz bandwidth and 240 horizontal resolution). The first machines required an external timer, and could only record one hour. The timer was later incorporated within the machine as a standard feature.

The rival VHS format (introduced in the United States in September 1976 by RCA) boasted a longer two-hour recording time with four hours using a "long play" mode (RCA models). Since 2 hours and 4 hours was near-ideal for recording movies and sports-games respectively, the consumer naturally flocked towards VHS rather than the 1-hour-limited Betamax. Although Sony later introduced Beta-II and Beta-III to allow a maximum time of 5+ hours, by that time VHS was already boasting 6, 8, or even 9 hours per tape. Thus VHS had a perceived "better value" in the eye of the consumer during the late 70s....

So, for all those reasons, this fraudulent cover-up wasn't as obvious as it is today in our world of DVDs and computer editing software.

So, do you have any other Wild assumptions or allegations about my inability "...to think critically..." to try to stump me with?:mad:

[SDuderstadt]

99. If it was "probably through the eye socket"

Why is there NO testimony from ANYONE about an entrance wound to JFK's eye? This justs gets goofier and goofier. As far as your claim that the autopsy photos were doctored and this is proven by the Zapruder film, you need to confer with your fellow CT's who claim the film itself was doctored. I will extend my comments about your lack of dritical thinking skills to the rest of the CT bunch. Sadly, this just never ends, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[AntiFascist]

101. I believe that there is a version of the Zapruder film...

which clearly shows a huge piece of the skull hanging over the front of the head. This is even confirmed in the version of the film above when you analyze what is left of the head after he slumps over in front of Jackie.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Cool

Then produce it. This should be fun because the Zapruder film shows the piece of skull hanging over the SIDE of JFK's head, not the front.

P.S. I didn't mean this to sound snippy, my friend!

[AntiFascist]

131. Right side, towards the front.....

I'd have to see this version again to be sure. I wish I had saved it. The possibility that there is a clearer version supports the theory that third generation copies may be what are widely distributed. Is there a link to the interview with French journalist William Reymond who reportedly viewed the unaltered version?

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?tt=url&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.fr%2FJFK-dernier-t%25C3%25A9moin-Assassinat-Kennedy%2Fdp%2F2080679406&lp=fr_en&.intl=us&fr=yfp-t-471

[defendandprotect]

113. The wound to the right temple is visible in photos --- though they obviously

tried to cover it up --- it looks like a bloody triangle ---

McDuff made clear immediately where the wound was --- right temple --

There is no shot thru the eye socket ---
and NONE mentioned either by PARKLAND doctors or on autopsy report ---

[SDuderstadt]

127. If they're "visible in photos"...

then simply provide one that proves your point. You can't because they don't exist. The wounds were to the back of the head (entrance) and to the side of the head (exit). This is easily confirmed by the Zapruder film and autopsy photos and drawings. I don't know where you get all this goofy misinformation.

[defendandprotect]

138. See: High Treason I, for one source re the wound to the right temple ---

That's by Livingstone

While I'm here, I might also mention a very interesting photo from High Treason II,
which is a copy of an autopsy photo of JFK on a hospital table --

In the background, the wall is tiled --- and at a certain point in the wall, you can see
that the photo has been altered --
and that the alteration lines up with the back of JFK's head.

This book is also usually available in your library --
If not, visit another library.

[SDuderstadt]

141. Oh, bullshit....

Have you ever read "Case Closed"? Have you ever read the Warren Commission Report? Have you ever read "Reclaiming America" The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy"? Do you ever read anything other than CT nonsense?

Why can't you just post said picture if it exists? Why do you always try to send people on a wild goose chase to the library? Hint: Because your conspiracy theories are full of holes.

[defendandprotect]

142. Yet another example of your, obviously, not being up to the debate ---

[SDuderstadt]

143. Seeing as how you won't provide any evidence for your goofy claims

It's kinda hard to actually have a debate. Hint: Just posting some conspiracy theory author's book title isn't "providing evidence". How do you know what they claim is true? If you are adopting that claim as your own, then show the evidence for it, otherwise we'll be locked in this goofy CT feedback loop forever.

[SDuderstadt]

144. This directly refutes your claim of the so-called "Wallace fingerprint"

As you can see from the excerpt of the Warren Commission Report provided below, the unidentified print was NOT a fingerprint but, instead, a PALM PRINT (which I have established before). You keep accusing me of "not being up to the debate" while you run and hide from the evidence I present that destroys your claim. I think you just can't bring yourself to admit that you've been duped by Barr McClellan, so you resort to cheesy misdirection and polemics. I keep providing evidence and you simply won't address it. Why is that?

From Chapter 6 of the Warren Commission Report (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr6.htm#p5)

"Accomplices at the Scene of the Assassination
The arrangement of boxes at the window from which the shots were fired was studied to determine whether Oswald required any assistance in moving the cartons to the window. Cartons had been stacked on the floor, a few feet behind the window, thus shielding Oswald from the view of anyone on the sixth floor who did not attempt to go behind them. (See Commission Exhibit No. 723.) Most of those cartons had been moved there by other employees to clear an area for laying a new flooring on the west end of the sixth floor. Superintendent Roy Truly testified that the floor-laying crew moved a long row of books parallel to the windows on the south side and had "quite a lot of cartons" in the southeast corner of the building. He said that there was not any particular pattern that the men used in putting them there. "They were just piled up there more or less at that time." According to Truly, "several cartons" which had been in the extreme southeast corner had been placed on top of the ones that had been piled in front of the southeast corner window.
The arrangement of the three boxes in the window and the one on which the assassin may have sat has been described previously. Two of these four boxes, weighing approximately 55 pounds each, had been moved by the floor-laying crew from the west side of the floor to the area near the southwest corner. The carton on which the assassin may have sat might not even have been moved by the assassin at all. A photograph of the scene depicts this carton on the floor alongside other similar cartons. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1301.) Oswald's right palmprint on this carton may have been placed there as he was sitting on the carton rather than while carrying it. In any event both of these 55-pound cartons could have been carried by one man. The remaining two cartons contained light block-like reading aids called "Rolling Readers" weighing only about 8 pounds each. Although they had been moved approximately 40 feet from their normal locations at the southeast corner window, it would appear that one man could have done this in a matter of seconds.

In considering the possibility of accomplices at the window, the Commission evaluated the significance of the presence of fingerprints other than Oswald's on the four cartons found in and near the window. Three of Oswald's prints were developed on two of the cartons. In addition a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on the 4 cartons. Moreover, prints were developed which were considered as not identifiable, i.e., the quality of the print was too fragmentary to be of value for identification purposes.

As has been explained in chapter IV, the Commission determined that none of the warehouse employees who might have customarily handled these cartons left prints which could be identified. This was considered of some probative value in determining whether Oswald moved the cartons to the window. All but 1 of the 25 definitely identifiable prints were the prints of 2 personsan FBI employee and a member of the Dallas Police Department who had handled the cartons during the course of the investigation. One identifiable palmprint was not identified."


Read the last sentence a couple of times and let it sink in. See? "One identifiable PALMPRINT was not identified". That's palmprint, NOT fingerprint. Please tell us how Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint could be compared to a palmprint. You can't. Your whole goofy claim falls apart right there. And all because you were too lazy to do the necessary research to see that McClellan got it wrong. I'm not sure which of you is the sloppier researcher.

[defendandprotect]

114. Yes . . . and that location became clear because of a computer analyst looking at the head wound ---

and he had realized that the direction of the shot would be from a quite low point ---
i.e., storm sewer!

Actually, I think there was a fusillade of shots --- and two or more came together quite quickly for the fatal head wounds -- one, perhaps, being from the storm sewer.

Jim Garrison, of course, KNEW immediately what had gone down --- or much of it!
He was brilliant ---
but under major attack.

Thank heavens for TMWKK --- and the many wonderful investigators who have kept at this and have
revealed so much of what happened.

America has really been kept in the dark on this --- and so much more!

[SDuderstadt]

119. The only ones "in the dark" are....

you and other goofy CT's who cannot tell the difference between the fatal head shot (singular) and this imaginary "fusillade of shots".

[defendandprotect]

121. Obviously you're not up to this debate re information nor intentions ----

[SDuderstadt]

124. Please provide any evidence you have for this imaginary...

"fusillade of bullets".

[Lilith Velkor]

108. Is that you, CapnAwesome?

[yurbud]

116. kick

[JMDEM]

128. You think this is new?

It is totally debunked disinformation. A shitload of garbage. The "driver shooting Kennedy" theory has been around for 30+ years and completely discredited by all the JFK conspiracy experts. Disinformation.

[SDuderstadt]

129. You're absolutely right but, unfortunately...

given the lack of critical thinking skills of the average CT, they'll pass this around and ooh and aah another 30+ years, thinking they're solving a mystery which simply doesn't exist. The funniest thing is that they usually think anyone who calls them on their nonsense has to be a RWer, no matter how solid your liberal credentials are.

[CalebHayes]

130. This has been debunked

[TBUSA]

133. No original Zapruder film

We will never see an original film. The Government took control of the last original in the 80's.
I saw the original and there was NO pouring out of brain matter, like you see now.
Zapruder film variations are all we have now.

[slackmaster]

134. Hogwash

:nuke:

[TBUSA]

136. Film shown in 1975 showed no 'brain blob'

Time had the film all that time. 1998 Government gave the Zapruders 16 million for the Film.
Many edits in film. Why are there ANY edits?
I saw the version with no brain blob and I have seen recent versions with the blob clearly visible. I know what I see.

[Mind_your_head]

146. A very very good man was MURDERED

...and the assassins still walk freely.

[BuyingThyme]

149. Nevermind.

I'll wait for a faster computer.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

150. self delete