JFK Assassination - Old Story New Questions - The Green Man

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Something to add to the mix, I have read this a few times else where, is it true, I don't know.
Nothing suprises me anymore.




The Kennedy Assassination: The Nixon-Bush Connection


www.sumeria.net...

Snip~~

A newly discovered FBI document reveals that George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy.
~~
On the day of the assassination Bush was in Texas, but he denies knowing exactly where he was. Since he had been the supervisor for the secret Cuban teams, headed by former Cuban police commander Felix Rodriguez, since 1960, it is likely Bush was also in Dallas in 1963. Several of the Cubans he was supervising as dirty-tricks teams for Nixon, were photographed in the Zagruder film.
~~
According to a biography of Richard Nixon, his close personal and political ties with the Bush family go back to 1941 when Nixon claims he read an ad in an L A. newspaper, placed by a wealthy group of businessmen, led by Prescot Bush, the father of George Bush. They wanted a young, malleable candidate to run for Congress. Nixon applied for the position and won the job. Nixon became a mouthpiece for the Bush group. (Source: Freedom Magazine, 1986, L.F. Prouty).

In fact, Prescot Bush is credited with creating the winning ticket of Eisenhower-Nixon in 1952.(Source: George Bush, F. Green, Hipocrene, 1988).

Newly discovered FBI documents prove that Jack Ruby has been an employee of Richard Nixon since 1947. That that [sic] FBI document Ruby is listed as working as a spy & hit man for Nixon. On Nov. 22, 63 Ruby was seen by a women who knew him well, Julian Ann Mercer, approximately an hour before the arrival of JFK's motorcade, unloading a man carrying a rifle in a case at the Grassy Knoll from his car. Ruby later was seen on national TV killing a witness who could link Nixon & Bush to the killing of JFK: Oswald. On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison, p xiii.



The Bush-Kennedy Connection




posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Hey Black cat,thats a great pic to demonstrate my opinion with.






now its my belief that the only original part of greenman in this picture is the very back of his head and a small strip down his back as can be more easily shown using some filters.










The point id really like to make is that in an area of the Zapruder film that seems at least to me to have great attempts to have attention drawn away from it via the umbrella man etc,i cant find these men made mention of anywhere else and i think it is actually hiding something very big.In my opinion they have turned 2 people into 1 with a technique i call the baby carrier.












You may not believe me today but if you download Zapruder or even better frame by frameHere

and get all the pictures from the various photographers.Glance at the pics everyday for a week and its my belief that your eyes will start adjusting to the tricks and the shadowing they use and you will be amazed by a work of art and deception manufactured overtop of the truth.



[edit on 30-12-2005 by jimstradamus]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Mayet


New things are found in all the photos everytime they are looked at. I would just ask people to look for themselves, experimeSnt with the photos and see if they can work out the lies from the truth. Watch the films, read the statements, it is one big fiasco of red herrings and really I wouldn't be surprised sometimes if Dealey Place never happened and it was all fake.




So your theory is that the assassination didn't take place at all? And part of that theory is relying on the insinuation that it wasn't Jackie, et. al. in the car?

Will you please comment on the fact that you have used Connally's eyeball as a button in this theory?

Also, do you have any follow-up thoughts on whose brain and blood is still splattered all over Jackie's face in this close up





Seriously i dont think anyone is suggesting it didnt really happen although with all the editing it does become frustrating trying to find the real bits to work with..but at the same time the picture you posted as proof that it did happen is far from conclusive





theres plenty more wrong with this picture including the fake shadowing but i think thats enough..i dont have time right now but i can also show you later how Jackies face and dress are both cropped onto some of those other pics


[edit on 30-12-2005 by jimstradamus]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   


A copy of the Altgens 6 Photo

[img]http://www.rejectz.com/origaltgens6.jpg[img]

Supposedly the original



Im not seeing the same people in this picture. It may be my eyes, but it sure seems that the people in the area of the Dal Tex building behind the pale car in the motorcade is different from picture to picture. This is the type of thing we are finding with many of the phtos. One or both of these pictures has been edited.

I may be wrong and actually going blind.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I'd say this is a very very interesting theory. Don't forget, President Kennedy wasn't Illuminati, & he wouldn't follow their orders, that's why he was killed.

It was a combination of all the Elite Powers behind the scenes/ & out in the open who took him out.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
There are a lot of unanswered questions about the JFK assassination, but most of the stuff here just seems like off-the-deep-end paranoia to me...


It is easy to dismiss something new and something different as being off the deep end. It is easy to call someone paranoid when you dont agree or wish to examine what they have to say.

I am sure if you were that worried socially about being labelled "deep end" and off the wall and paranoid so much you wouldn't even visit ATS. After all it is the home of "those conspiracist Nuts". I feel instead that ATS is a place to have eye opening discussions and to deny ignorance. To deny ignorance to me is to investigate what I am spoon fed and if it doesn't make sense then I look further.



Same film, same time.. nothing done except to take the frames, crop them and resize, both the same. Remarkable weight loss. There is more being found daily. Green Man Comparisons

Al we ask is that people judge for themselves. get every photograph and film available of the assassination and examine it with a critical and open eye. For edits and changes.

One thing that keeps coming up is the word doppleganger, it has been mentioned to me by about four people now who have seen the photos. The number of "twins" or dopplegangers in photos. I haven't looked for this myself yet but I will be doing so.

A James Olmstead proved that a photo taken of the "snipers Nest" in the Texas School Book Depository was different to how it really was. There was a set of pipes in the picture that were not the same as the actual pipes were. The FBI has been at a loss to explain this. If that photo was wrong, or faked or edited and proved to be so, then how many other photographs of the day suffered this same fate.


karws.gso.uri.edu...
James Olmstead, who likes to refer to himself as a JFK researcher and not a buff, said he has determined that the museum has pipes in the wrong position on the sixth floor of a book depository Ï the perch from where Lee Harvey Oswald reportedly shot the wildly popular president on Nov. 22, 1963.

Officials at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas agree with Olmstead and are beginning the tedious process of determining how and when the mistake was made, trying to correct it and, more importantly, analyzing what it means

Olmstead said he questions how the pipes were positioned when those photos were taken.

But he said he still believes Oswald would have had room to shoot Kennedy even if the pipes butted out farther into the room than the way in which they are portrayed in various pictures published by the Warren Commission.





is taken from
There is no shadow in any other frame next to the Green Men

www.rejectz.com...
Green man Sequence of Zapruder

www.assassinationresearch.com...
The above site show all the Zapruder Frames.

www.rejectz.com...
Quick Time of Zapruder and includes view in slow motion.

jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com...
The Bond Photos and the Bronson photos are of particular interest.



[edit on 1-1-2006 by Mayet]

[edit on 1-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I snaged a 3 minute clip From William Coopers Behold a Pale Horse, Kennedy being shot buy his driver.

media.putfile.com...







posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
You can actually also see that sequence quite well when you look at it www.rejectz.com...

www.rejectz.com... has the whole film and the film in slow mo. By comparing all the different versions you can see some edits.

but somethings about that sequence lead me to believe that parts of it may be edited to. The blood was proven to be edited in the film, it was there in one frame and not the next. The Green Man has been edited, there is no doubt in ours and many other minds now about that and if you pay attention and watch the driver through the whole zaplow.gif above you will see it does in fact look like he shot the president for the final headshot. But if you look very closely there is a glint off the "gun" that draws the eyes there, no such "glint" is seen throughout the rest of the film off any object, in fact the film is too blurry to "glint" anything. It may have been edited in to draw the attention to that spot.

Another point to look at is the poor quality of the Dealey plaza photos, blurry faces and strangely pixelated bodies and compare it to the quality of pictures taken a few minutes earlier at Love Field when the president arrived.

So it is possible that the driver did do it. But its possible to that the film was edited to make it look like that.

The attention is certainly dawn away from the Green man on the day and after. With scenarios like it was the grassy knoll, the driver did it, it came from the other end of building, it came from the Dal Tex building and so on. Also, the Green man (men) has not been officially identified, on any researchers charts that we have studied.

www.rejectz.com...

As was mentioned in a prior post, there already has been proven that a photo taken by Police/fbi and used in the Warren Commission was a fake. That's one, how much other of the "pictorial" evidence was fake as well. Why stop at one faking. They may as well fake the lot to suit the story,

Who fired the fatal head shot? I do not know, but i do know that earlier in the piece, about when the Pres got the neck shot, Green man was certainly in the right spot and acting very suspiciously.







[edit on 1-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
If our blowing a little dust off of JFK research makes you paranoid you better close your eyes because it's gonna get a whole lot stranger.Its fairly safe to assume we could have sat on this for who knows how long as its a conspiracy unto itself that Green Man isnt even a minor player in a crazy cast of charcters and in my opinion he is the most suspicious.We could have had all the time in the world to perfect an error free report,make it bullet proof and flawless,the fact of the matter is that this has been so much fun and exciting that we want everybody to see with their own eyes,to get those goosebumps and to understand that there are still many things to investigate in this case.I think only those that comment without looking for themselves will try to imply that our theory is unrealistic.Everybody else in Dealey Plaza has been disected and microscoped so why not Green Man ?


For anyone thats enjoying this












Thats just one crazy part of this bus and theres so much more..really look at it in the uncropped versions of those pictures


[edit on 1-1-2006 by jimstradamus]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Just like Star Wars, eh?

There were no truly viable methods to do selective edits of moving film circa 1963. Editing/faking just one frame of even 8mm film requires several steps with that old technology. The only thing they could realistically do is to paint onto the film itself. I don't see that here.

They could not do pixel-by-pixel photoshopping type work on multiple, sequential frames of film without noticeablity. The animated image, when played at 24fps would not look right. Seriously, you have to have Leonardo Davinci doing the forgery. It would take truly great art skills, from my understanding of things. They'd have to be able to paint film with supreme skill.

Star Wars in 1977 was all camera tricks, not much frame-editing because of the simple unavailability of any graphics programs in 1977, let alone 1963. The offhand example I can think of is the blurred bar they added to the bottom of Luke's speeder, and that looks fake anyway. Again, you'll find little to no pixel editing in A New Hope (1977) because the technology wasn't there. That's why Adobe Systems made shareholders so rich in the 1990's. The ability to do Photoshopping was new at that point.

An example of moving frame-edits would be the re-release of Star Wars: ANH where we see the edited version of Han Solo's confrontation with Greedo. They edited the scene to look like Greedo fired first. Now look at it and tell me if you've ever seen anything more stupid-looking.

Point is, it's very difficult to edit moving pictures without computers. You have to actually develop two prints with transparencies and then run them on top of each other in a compositing machine. If the clips don't match, the resulting image will show shake or misalignment of the spot (on the two separate prints) you are trying to composite/merge.

Still, this thread is interesting. I'm just curious as to how much thought has been put into the supreme difficulty of editing/faking portions of moving film. It's not easy. Pixel-by-pixel editing? Please explain how.



[edit on 1-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
We are not the first to accuse the film of being faked. We have shown photographs here that we believe to be faked to hide what really went on in this part of the sequnce.

Over the years there has been much debate whether the autopsy photos were faked and whether the Zapruder film was faked to. If you read the entire thread here you will know the film wasn't released publicly until the mid 70's. 4 Black and white stills were released in 64

What we are concerned with is Green man and his companion "companions". Take a look at the frames we have shown here and on www.rejectz.com... We believe that Zapruder has been edited and is fake because this man's (mens) bodies do not "fit" as we have explained. and they have some weird objects and head placements. They say Green man is black, yet he has white hands in some frames and the back of his neck in others is also white, albeit tanned.

As previously stated the is much controversy over whether the head shot section is faked and whether the driver did it section has been faked. But over the years Green man and his companion have been ignored, even though when you look at the film closely He is shown to make some very suspicious moves.

The green Man and his companion have never been officially identified. Yet every single other person in Dealey Plaza that day has been dissected, pulled apart and the timing of them picking their nose or scratching their backsides recorded in the most minute detail. But everyone leaves Green man and the actions alone.

When we first viewed the film Green man stuck out to us straight away, the objects in hands, the pixelization that doesn't quite match and so on but it wasn't until we dissected green man and his companion that we found things were not as they appeared to be.

Of course this is only theory, everything surrounding the JFK assassination is theory. What we ask is for people to take carefully observations of the film and stills themselves, they may see something different.

But back to the faking of the film. As we stated we are not the first to come up with the theory that the Zapruder Film is faked.


www.assassinationscience.com...
Today, we all know what happens when you fast-forward (“picture search”) a videotape: not only does everyone move quickly, but their actions are much too jerky.
When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn’t just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.
Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did.



www.jfkresearch.com...
The final uptake, Zapruder has it in the can, the film as it sit’s in the camera, BEFORE it get’s to Kodak is the LAST time we can know for sure that it’s in it’s original state. All bets are off when that film enters Kodak - Dallas. We’re told Kodak can’t do the optical prints, fine Jamieson Film can do them. That’s the first RED flag for me Kodak* doesn’t have any Double 8mm PRINT stock available - gott’a use camera stock for print’s ah, yeah... right. Let me get this straight Kodak only sells film and film processing, that’s their corporate mission, their lifeblood even. And NO print film for the film of the CENTURY? (A project that may provide a little interest is why camera original film was used for the Zapruder optical prints -- could bumping from 8mm to 16mm look a lot better if it’s coming off of Kodacolor camera stock? hmm. Of course it does ! ! ! Oh... by the way, over the years we’ve been told about emulsion side out stuff regarding the ZAP film can’t this - that.... maybe one of these photo experts on the LN side of the aisle would provide me with the proper definition of bipack film printing more commonly called emulsion to emulsion printing.. One could make ANY camera original duplicate in a bipack setup look exactly like the original -- emulsion side out ... for the edge numbers, I hope this doesn’t come as to much of a shock but there is film manufactured withOUT edge #’s and footage count indications.


The above paragraph and the two below it in the articl explain your questions.

And another


john-f-kennedy.net...
* There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant. Some might attempt to explain this anomaly by suggesting that the lens was nonlinear for objects so far off the central axis. But, even if



www.thepresidenthasbeenshot.4t.com...
Ed O Hagan was born in Northern Ireland and currently resides in Canada, he has studied the assassination and Zapruder film intensively. Ed has produced evidence which he believes shows that the Zapruder film has been altered. Ed believes that if the film had not been altered, the footage would show that a shot could not have originated in the Texas School Book Depository, thus ruling out Lee harvey Oswald as President Kennedys assassin.



mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
the Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film which is badly damaged, you should inquire as to why it is so badly damaged with the Secret Service. It is broken and ruined in a lot of places. How could this have happened? How could they take such critical evidence in this tragedy and it be ruined? But this visual evidence in this case is the key to the murder of John Kennedy because it is all fake, and I mean the Zapruder film is a fake.
The autopsy photographs are a fake. The autopsy X-rays are a fake. We first determined this in 1979


So yes, there are some others who also hold the theory that Zapruder is faked. Other say Zapruder is real and use it for complete evidence of the day. You may be able to find the same amount of links we have given saying Zapruder is real. I think each person must look closely and judge for themselves.

All we ask is to look for oneself, closely at the Green man section. We can't called him by name like we can The Newmans, Little Rosemary Willis and her parents, Altgens (the press photographer) Bronson, Zapruder, Moorman Hill, Charles Brehms and the others there that day, because he has not been identified. He and his companion or companions are invisible men.

One researcher puts Jim Hicks across the road from Umbrella Man, but others put Jim Hicks up at the corener and others on the same side of street near Umbrella Man.

We just think its odd that no one has mentioned Green man before today, no One has dissected him and his companion and found out what colour underwear they were wearing on the day and whether they had a handkerchief showing. I read one researcher comment he wasn't aware till he saw something that Jean Hill's slip was showing. Hmm Had me I thought she was wearing trousers,

Point is --- Our theory is that Green man is suspicious and it certainly looks like he has been edited for something in that section to be covered up. Its a theory, as close to proof we have is by showing you the pictures we have shown. Other people think other photos have been faked, we tend to agree. Yet others think that the Autopsy photos are fake, we don't know about that we havne't really looked. Others think there is something fishy about how a set of pipes turn up in an fbi photo to be different to how they were when Oswald apparently took the shot. Ok the pipes were changed, OR the photo was faked. Yet others think the whole thing is real.

They are all theories but we believe as others have in the past that the Zapruder film is fishy.

And we strongly believe that Green Man and his companion or companions are hugely fishy.










[edit on 1-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   


We believe that Zapruder has been edited and is fake because this man's (mens) bodies do not "fit" as we have explained. and they have some weird objects and head placements. They say Green man is black, yet he has white hands in some frames and the back of his neck in others is also white, albeit tanned.

No problem, I'm not debunking really, I just have trouble when people accept "Altered Zapruder" theories. JFK's head goes back and to the left and the film is shot in broad daylight with a clear view of JFK getting murdered by a frontal shot. What more do people want from this film?

Anyway, my point is there is a massive difference between still photos and moving film which I have never seen addressed. The links you provided seem uninformed, although I'll look at them more closely. Regarding technology available in 1963 toward Zapruder's 8mm footage, I'd say there could have been:

1: frames taken out
2: identifying marks removed (driver's 'gun glint' could be taken out)
3: analog scent-throwing errors introduced (abberations, double images, gun glint added)

With existing tech, there could be no pixel-specific, sequential frames altered to look like real motion, which is what seems to be implied here.

Why would someone alter the film --different from editing or cutting frames, and then leave in enough hint of a clue? My point is this: If they had the wizardry to alter the contents of the film film using alien tech or something that didn't exist at that time, then they had the ability to make it look correct.

There are a number of reasons this Green man could be making these motions. Suspicious? Maybe. Could they have been assassins/agents? Sure. Will it be accepted as proof? Never.

There is sufficient evidence toward conspiracy without getting into the does-that-rumpled-jacket-in-the-closet-look-like-a-monster type of argument. What is the point of this? You cannot create any better evidence for JFK murder conspiracy with any line of "Zapruder Alteration" reasoning, IMO. Where does it lead? What is the desired outcome?



[edit on 1-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Your still saying 63.. That Im not sure.. One point is the film was bought by Time Magazine who's editor Hery luce was anti kennedy. He lo cked it away and didnt allow viewings.Luce died in 67. Zapruder died in 1970. Jackson, the life mag exec who first bought the film died in 64, The time mag employee in charge of JFK stories died in 67 i think.

So theres THE few people who could tell us whats real or not, all dead. Natural causes or not, they can't tell us now.

The film was not released to the public until 1975.

We could sit here all day, and throw "evidence" from various parties on both sides of the fence back and forwards yes its fake, yes its genuine. No one can honestly PROVE either way.

We have shown classic examples of why we believe it to be fake and all we want is for people to look fo themselves. See the GreenMan and his companion(s) and the weird suspicious movements they make and make up there own minds. The Glint of Greer's "gun" the Blood splatters? The Green Man?

The outcome? Well there is an official record being preservd for history involved here. As people die less people are likely to come out and challenge the offical lne. Rumours are only rumours. But if that is the case, and we are right with just one tiny bit even of what we say then that official record being preserved for history is a lie in the making. Theefore you are seeing a lie that will be taught to your desendants. Therefore the wool is being pulled over peoples faces and a massive lie perpetuated. and therefore the people who are behind all this, will "get away with it" forever.

Its not about creating a conspiracy, its about revealing a truth through a thousand lies.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   


Its not about creating a conspiracy, its about revealing a truth through a thousand lies.

We are on the same page emotionally regarding JFK's death. What I'm saying is that the only way to prosecute JFK's killers is to prove some kind of conspiracy, which has already been done, at least suitable for civil law. I'm saying that such conspiracy has been proven by the film itself. There's no need to take this route. I don't see this as adding much to serious JFK research because even if these are men sprinting, hiding a rifle or whatever, it simply cannot be corroborated or verified. The driver shooting JFK thing was argued in a another thread, where I admit some frames may have been removed, but altering a moving image on film is not practical at the time of JFKs death nor afterward unless seriously gifted artists worked on the process. I suppose this could have happened since the murder itself was well-engineered. You'd have to have some unknown artist come forward to say he'd worked on it. No agency hack could do it.

If JFK's murder was to have anything done about it, it would have been done by the house select comittee on assassinations. When this committee threw out valid links and ignored impartial investigators, Americans had their last chance to make an issue of JFK. They didn't care, and this was surely forseen by JFKs ultimate murderers.

Let us say that a different clip of film is produced which clearly shows Green Man stuffing half of a rifle down his pants. So then, we have proven what exactly? That the murderers were stupid enough to have some guy running toward JFK's limo, in flat open space, right in front of everyone, firing some kind of strange hipshot bullet, right past Jackie and into the other side of JFK's head? Forgive me if I'm missing part of this scenario.

So then what? Yeah, so this guy's shooting at the limo too. Will anything be done? No. The evidence presented here would not motivate .0001% of Americans to resist the pressure of conformity to public opinion.

You're fighting Peter Jennings and the bulk of the media if you stray from the party line regarding JFK. Saying Zapruder's frames were painted or tweaked is not going to get the job done.



[edit on 1-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
There's no need to take this route. I don't see this as adding much to serious JFK research because even if these are men sprinting, hiding a rifle or whatever, it simply cannot be corroborated or verified. The driver shooting JFK thing was argued in a another thread, where I admit some frames may have been removed, but altering a moving image on film is not practical at the time of JFKs death nor afterward unless seriously gifted artists worked on the process. I suppose this could have happened since the murder itself was well-engineered. You'd have to have some unknown artist come forward to say he'd worked on it. No agency hack could do it.


You may not be able to see it adding to "serious JFK assassination" research but there are others that do. All information is pertinent, especally if those researchers and others are carrying out the official story or official lie. the Zapruder film is used extensively in serious research and if it ha d been edited it shows a tainted chain of evidence.


baltimorechronicle.com...
But how was it possible to alter the film? Right after the assassination, the film was brought to a photo studio in Dallas, where it was developed. The official story says that Zapruder sold the original and one copy to Lifemagazine for $150,000 the next day and gave the other two copies to the Secret Service ((which gave one of these copies to the FBI). There is a strong indication that the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC, a CIA department) conducted a study of the original film on the night of the assassination.
Was it possible that the conspirators got the film to Washington on the day of the assassination and back the next day? Livingstone says yes., explaining they would only have had to delude Zapruder and use jets to fly the film to Washington the night of November 22 and back on the next day. The technology to alter a film already existed in 1963.
Today, the original Zapruder film is in cold storage in the National Archives. On August 1, the film became the property of the U.S. government, but the FBI has to pay a “fair” price for it to the Zapruder family.


As said above the technology did exist in the 60's to alter the film, along with that we have reason. The reason is simple enough when you realise that millions have watched this film and swallowed it as the official sequence of events for the assassination. The same wih the photos.

Are the Autopsy photos fake? Are most of the photos that day edited in some way to hide something or even to create something else. You say all this is not needed but it is, it needs people to stand up and say hey this is not right, Im told the sky is pink but i can see it is blue. People may be apathetic about it now, after all it happened over 40 years ago, but it still should not stop anyone from wishing to expose a truth from a lie so cleverly created to deceive the people. I would doubt anything will ever be offically done now but thats not the entire point. The point is that what is being preserved as a truth for history is a lie a cleverly created and constructed lie to hide the guilty. And the point is that there is a group of people standing there saying this film is edited and hoaxed but people are being told and are still accepting that film as untainted evidence, when it is tainted.

The point is speaking out, oh yeah we know we are really out on a limb so to speak and we know we are going against the "official line". We know we are "bucking" that well constructed lie by what we are saying. we know we face ridicule, derision and having ourselves pulled to pieces by saying any of this. We know we face being labelled idiots and crackpots and nutters for speaking out and it probably would have been easier and safer not to speak out at all. But we did and we will, because we cannot sit by and watch this lie being perpetrated without speaking and saying "hang on that is not right" because its not.


If JFK's murder was to have anything done about it, it would have been done by the house select comittee on assassinations. When this committee threw out valid links and ignored impartial investigators, Americans had their last chance to make an issue of JFK. They didn't care, and this was surely forseen by JFKs ultimate murderers.


I think recent events have shown how comfortable people are in their glass bubbles about what Governments are capable of doing and what they do. People are taught to mind their own business and to go about life without "bucking" the system. The HSCA did have a chance to set it straight but it was soon showed that was not to be so. How could Americans make an issue when everything is so well controlled.


Let us say that a different clip of film is produced which clearly shows Green Man stuffing half of a rifle down his pants. So then, we have proven what exactly? That the murderers were stupid enough to have some guy running toward JFK's limo, in flat open space, right in front of everyone, firing some kind of strange hipshot bullet, right past Jackie and into the other side of JFK's head? Forgive me if I'm missing part of this scenario.


The film is faked, photos were faked, many other things were faked, how far does the faking go to perpetrate that lie. as said why were there so few witnesses in Dealey Plaza, an easy answer is so damage control is maintained easily. And the lie can be created for all the millions to swallow as the offical story of how JFK died.

What have we proven if it shows these things, we have proved a huge lie, a massive lie played on the people.



You're fighting Peter Jennings and the bulk of the media if you stray from the party line regarding JFK. Saying Zapruder's frames were painted or tweaked is not going to get the job done.


Its not about who we are are fighting by going against this official line, its about having a say against a massively prepetrated lie. If it doesn't get the job done so be it. t least we have said our piece at least we tried to set the record straight.


[edit on 1-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   


Its not about who we are are fighting by going against this official line, its about having a say against a massively prepetrated lie. If it doesn't get the job done so be it. t least we have said our piece at least we tried to set the record straight.

Okay, I see your point. FWIW, you have framed a suspicious happening.

Please continue to discuss, because I don't want to usurp your op/ed. Hopefully more can be said about the technical difficulty of faking moving images.

Don't let me sidetrack you. Obviously lots of work is represented here. I respect that and will continue to examine it.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

".... A newly discovered FBI document reveals that George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy.


REPLY: bot.... wouldn't THAT be all over the news.
I recall very well watching on TV the assassination, and the killing of Bobby and Ruby. The only editing of the Zapruder film that I can recall was pertaining to the grassy knoll, and that was bu the removal of one, single frame of the film, which seemed to contain a ballistic trace in the air from the passage of the bullet. I have a VHS copy of the film in storage in Indiana, and won't have access to it for a few months. It was from a show on Discovery concerning the assassination. But when I get it, I will check frame by frame to see if it was the edited version, or if they had the older version.

As for all the work you or someone has done... you must have a lot of time on your hands. In the first picture, even with the Photoshop work and filters, t appears that nothing was edited out.. the man was clapping his hands. As to which direction he was pointing, the third photo down places his forward direction as slightly behind the limo. That was alll I had to see to discount most all of what was said.
Sorry.....



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
well the guy or guys certainly look to be doing more than clapping hands in the photos above and on the Green Man Page. Each person will see different and many won't want to see as it goes so far off the official story of what happened.


The VHS copy wouldn't prove either way. As already stated the film was locked up from 64 to 75. Then released to the public. The tainted trail started way back.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Just like Star Wars, eh?




OMG!!! Did you just link the editing of JFK material with a block buster motion picture boasting incredible new technology.I admire your huge balls...even i wouldnt say that out loud



As for Peter Jennings and the party line....People here at ATS love to investigate things so were not asking you to do anything that you dont already enjoy.If everybody here stopped investigating everything that would never change the party line i cant imagine the boredom.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

jimstradamus said:
OMG!!! Did you just link the editing of JFK material with a block buster motion picture boasting incredible new technology.I admire your huge balls...even i wouldnt say that out loud

No, I was replying to this paragraph in Mayet's original post:


Mayet Said:
and if the Zapruder films show faking on the head shot, faking of the driver "gun" and faking of the green man, does this mean the whole film is faked? The film rights were bought by the editor of Time, Henry Luce, an anti Kennedy person. He locke dthe film away and died himself in 1967. The Zapruder film was finally released in 1975. Star Wars was released in 1977 which can give you an idea of special effects able to be created in the 70's.

Although I don't think this statement is accurate, I sympathize with the effort to identify JFK's murderers. As I said, nothing will be done. The NWO snake has us 75% of the way down it's mouth already. You think some kind of independant investigation is going to happen? No, it won't. As you can hear in another thread, LBJ and Hoover on tape, colluding to ensure that nothing really gets investigated, just like every "connected" person on the inside has done.

JFKs murderers have short-circuited the minds of the generation which followed the sixties and which could be protesting to know the truth, but which are more interested in TV. As a result, kids today wouldn't move a finger for JFK even if real film of a second shooter came out. They're too focused on the bright, gleaming future promised by the NWO to worry about some guy from the past. Like I said, the snake's got us three-fourths of the way eaten already. People would rather munch popcorn while perusing threads about crazy JFK theory permutations than to actually brainstorm ways to make JFKs killers pay.

The banking act had already been passed before JFK, so the treason of his killers predates his death. Even if he was going to try and undo the banksters hold on the US, the fact that so few are looking into these facts show that the NWO has won, at least to this point. Slowly we're disppearing down the NWO snake's throat.

But at least we can cleverly point to multiple shooters around (and inside?) JFK's limo. That should entertain us while we're being digested.



[edit on 2-1-2006 by smallpeeps]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join