JFK First Witness Accounts With The Zapruder Film Faking and Other Photo's

Mayet- well done article. i found it fascinating and well done.
Now I'm not criticising here just offering my take. I find it interesting that you would rely on eyewitness testimony when it has been proven in scientific studies over the years to be quite unreliable. Its the reason prosecutors prefer hard evidence over witness'. Heck you can even do your own study. Gather ten friends together and sit in a circle. One person starts by telling the person next to them something. And so on around the circle. By the time it gets back to the person that started it there will be some variation to the original theme. Its called temporal chauvinism.
Now it's all well and good to base your assertions on eyewitness testimony but to believe them over Photos and videos that have been seen over and over by multitudes of people and analysed to death made me want to ask why you then use a photo of Kennedy standing in a limo as proof. Don't get me wrong here. I just find it a bit odd that your willing to dismiss photographic evidence in one instance but turn around and use it to support the photos you dismiss.
Does that make sense? Why use photos from an unrelated instance to support an assertion that the photos were wrong in the first instance.

Longhaircowboy....are you suggesting that the govt went back to previous motorcades and edited the President from sitting to standing in order to make the Zapruder film look even less like how the President behaves in Dallas.

Heres JFK from Nov18/63 i think he's saying ouch my aching back








Jedi Sorry for any confusion on the frame #'s i believe the one your finding impossible to locate is Frame Z235 and now that you have shown the time and effort you will take to locate the frame everybody expects the same time and effort will be spent on your investigation of the film on a frame by frame basis...anyone truly interested would have found the frame.



May 24 1964 the re enactment was staged by FBI,secret service and commission staff and it was filmed from different angles using the exact same cameras that were used by Zapruder,Nix and Muchmore to film the actual assassination.

You can claim many reasons why this was done but i believe it goes a long way in making the editing of the originals so much easier.Combined with the fact that we know exactly the types of things the government of the time was capable(operation northwood) and it seems at least to me that it would be nieve to suggest that alterations were NOT made.

Jim- actually I wasn't suggesting anything. I just found it puzzling that Mayet would seek to discredit film evidence and rely on eyewitness(unreliable) testimony and then use a photo from an unrelated event to back up said eyewitness'. Is that a bit clearer?
Who knows maybe there was some hanky panky involving the photos or video. I haven't seen anything to prove that assertion. It's my feeling that it would have been harder to do back then but not impossible. I'm sure it would be easier to detect though. It's so easy to mess with photos these days that I think most assume it so then. This is not the case since the technology and equipment then were more primative.
Just my opinion mind you.

Maybe im wrong but my understanding is that Mayet posted the evidence to refute previous claims that Kennedy would not stand due to his bad back.If this is in fact the case then it makes sense to me that seeing the President actually performing what was claimed he couldnt ( medical reasons) just days before in Miami and previously in Hawaii is quite relevant as evidence especially since if the claim wasnt made the pictures wouldnt have been posted.Hows the clarity?


Were sorry if people take this as evidence that Kennedy was not at all himself in Dealey Plaza but that wasnt the intention for posting the pictures.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by jimstradamus]

Ok I see what your saying. And it made me go back and reread the original post. I didn't find any mention of the previous claim of Kennedy's bad back.
I'll read it a third time later just to be sure.
One thing I did notice was that the eyewitness accounts qouted are quite different.
Mr. Chism says the President was standing before the first shot.
Mrs Chism says he was standing when shot(which Mayet says means he was standing before the first shot).
Mrs. Newman says the President jumped when shot. And Connally grabbed his chest.
Mr. Newman Heard a shot then the President jumped. Connally was holding his mid sectoin.
Jean Newman seems to me to be describing exactly what happened in the Zapruder film. At least the one I've seen.
There seems to be quite a discrepancy in these accounts and I don't see how these could mean the photo evidence is phoney. Shoot there aren't even 2 of those accounts that match each other.
Photos of Kennedy standing in Miami and Hawaii do not mean he was standing in Dallas. Where's the eyewitness testimony to that? See what I mean? You can't say one set of photos are real and then say the others aren't. Especially using such wildly varying witness testimony.
I think the place to look for dirty dealing is the Warren Commission. Just the list of members gives me pause. That commission was so loaded there was no way a fair hearing was gonna happen.
And I'd like to thank LBJ and Tricky Dick for ruining 3 years of my life.
Anyway i just wanna say thanks. For making me think.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Ok I see what your saying. And it made me go back and reread the original post. I didn't find any mention of the previous claim of Kennedy's bad back.
I'll read it a third time later just to be sure.

We did not make the claim of the bad back. Excitable_boy made that claim when he was attempting to discredit what we were saying about the witnesses speaking of JFK standing up. as quoted below

Excitable Boy
The president was standing in the car? Ridiculous. It's hard enough for a healthy person to do this for any short length of time, never mind JFK with his bad back He wouldn't stand up in the car...he would sit and relax and wave at the crowd as he drove by

Excitable exerts that everything is ridiculous and silly, classic disinfo techniques. we have shown the Hawaii photos and the Miami ones, which were incidently taken aug 63 Hawaii and Nov 18 1963 Miami. (a few days before the assassination). Both set of photos show JFK standing in the limousine, which gives further credibility to the witnesses accounts (on pre existing Method of Operation) and the Miami ones show him bending over.

One thing I did notice was that the eyewitness accounts qouted are quite different.

Not really at all, they are remarkably similiar when you compare each witneses position and when.

It is also remarkable that these witnesses who do speak of things that go against the party line were not called to the Warren Commission. It is also interesting to note that these are the areas that people seem to focus on when attempting to discredit our work.

as previously stated no two witnesses will ever report the exact same things. I did write a section on memory in the first post. Some witnesses have focused in some areas and others in other areas.

Mr. Chism says the President was standing before the first shot.
Mrs Chism says he was standing when shot (which Mayet says means he was standing before the first shot).

I did not say he was standing before the first shot, Mrs Chism said it, as quoted below. I quoted Mrs Chism.

Mrs Chism
I heard this first shot, and the President fell to his left. The Presidents wife immediately stood over him, and she pulled him up, and lay him down in the seat, and she stood up over him in the car. The President was standing and waving and smiling at the people when the shot happened.

Ok we have a husband and wife BOTH saying the same thing, so what we need now to do is corroborate it further, which we do by Mr Newman who was also standing in the same area.

Mr Newman
The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up.

Mrs. Newman says the President jumped when shot. And Connally grabbed his chest.

Mrs Newman doesn't say he was sitting either. In fact she doesn't speak of his position before the shooting, I guess thats a question that would be raised when cross examining her testimony at a commission or trial,

oh wait...she wan't called before the Warren Commission and neither was her husband or the Chisms. Isn't that strange.

Mr. Newman Heard a shot then the President jumped. Connally was holding his mid sectoin.

As stated above Mr Newman does say the president was standing

Jean Newman seems to me to be describing exactly what happened in the Zapruder film. At least the one I've seen.

Once again jean Newman does NOT state what the presidents position was before the shooting. And thats something that would have been bough up when examining her testimony in the Warren Commision.. Oh wait, she wasn't called to the Warren Commision either. Jean newman was then behind the President so would be unable to get as clear a view as the Chisms and Newmans of the further happenings.

There seems to be quite a discrepancy in these accounts

As I have just shown once again there is consistenices between the reports, for one that the president was standing which we have shown is standard behaviour.

and I don't see how these could mean the photo evidence is phoney. Shoot there aren't even 2 of those accounts that match each other.
Photos of Kennedy standing in Miami and Hawaii do not mean he was standing in Dallas. Where's the eyewitness testimony to that?

We just showed the eyewitness testimony to him standing. Many of the other first reports do not speak of his position at all instead concentrating on other areas. As Jean newman said she was focused on Jackie. She was so focused on jackie that she does not even mention Jackie jumping out on the car boot

See what I mean? You can't say one set of photos are real and then say the others aren't. Especially using such wildly varying witness testimony.

Where did I say one set of photos was real and one set wasn't.

I think the place to look for dirty dealing is the Warren Commission. Just the list of members gives me pause. That commission was so loaded there was no way a fair hearing was gonna happen.

If you wish to study the Warren Commission you are quite welcome to. We here in this thread are speaking of the witness first accounts.

And I'd like to thank LBJ and Tricky Dick for ruining 3 years of my life.
Anyway i just wanna say thanks. For making me think.

Your Welcome.




[edit on 21-1-2006 by Mayet]

I ain't touchin this one.

Cowboy....I don't blame you for not wanting to touch this mess!

Excitable exerts that everything is ridiculous and silly, classic disinfo techniques. we have shown the Hawaii photos and the Miami ones, which were incidently taken aug 63 Hawaii and Nov 18 1963 Miami. (a few days before the assassination). Both set of photos show JFK standing in the limousine, which gives further credibility to the witnesses accounts (on pre existing Method of Operation) and the Miami ones show him bending over.

I'm going to ask for about the 5th time at least....Mayet....why would anyone hide the fact that the president was standing in Dealey Square? WHY? Why would they edit it out of every movie and every photograph taken that day? WHY? You haven't answered yet because you have no answer because you realize how pathetic this is. Again, there was a massive conpsiracy and all you rant on about is your belief that the president was standing....

Get outside and get some fresh air......

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Cowboy....I don't blame you for not wanting to touch this mess!

Excitable exerts that everything is ridiculous and silly, classic disinfo techniques. we have shown the Hawaii photos and the Miami ones, which were incidently taken aug 63 Hawaii and Nov 18 1963 Miami. (a few days before the assassination). Both set of photos show JFK standing in the limousine, which gives further credibility to the witnesses accounts (on pre existing Method of Operation) and the Miami ones show him bending over.

I'm going to ask for about the 5th time at least....Mayet....why would anyone hide the fact that the president was standing in Dealey Square? WHY? Why would they edit it out of every movie and every photograph taken that day? WHY? You haven't answered yet because you have no answer because you realize how pathetic this is. Again, there was a massive conpsiracy and all you rant on about is your belief that the president was standing....
Get outside and get some fresh air......

Major point here that I have re iterated over and over which seems to be glossed over by Excitable Boy and others. I am not the one presenting my belief that the president was standing. The first account affidavit evidence from closely situated eyewitnesses to the assassination are the ones speaking of the president standing. For which I direct the reader to my previous post on this page.

You were answered on page 1 of this thread, a point you continue to ignore in your efforts to discredit. Once again i draw the readers attention to the disinformation tactics used. I also draw readers attention to both pages 1 and 2 of this thread.

External Source
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.'

and this one to from the same document home.datawest.net...

External Source
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'

Once again to demand the answer of why the president was edited out "if he was standing" requires a philosophical answer. We are presenting here the evidence from first eyewitness testimonies taken on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1963. That is to say evidence not philosophy.

Once again to demand the answer of why the president was edited out "if he was standing" requires a philosophical answer. We are presenting here the evidence from first eyewitness testimonies taken on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1963. That is to say evidence not philosophy.

Come on Mayet...instead of skating around the issue AGAIN, humor us with your belief (or philosophy) in WHY anyone would feel the need to edit all the movies and pictures from Dealy Plaza so that the president standing could be hidden from the world. Seriously, humor us. I understand you have presented your "eyewitness" testimony. Testimony that varies from witness to witness and testimony that comes from people that were under stress and anxiety. But why is it so hard for you to give us your OPINION as to why the president standing would be edited out of all the pictures and films from Dealy Plaza?

But see, I know why you don't answer. Because you know it's ridiculous, but your ego is in the way. Your answer would be as ridiculous as the idea and thus, no answer.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Just a guess here but me thinks that if it can be proved that Kennedy was standing in Dallas then it supports the Green Man theory. If Kennedy wasn't standing then the Green Man theory has zero validity. Did I figure it out?
And while I'm at it I'll say again-photos of him standing somewhere else has zero relevance to what he did in Dallas.
Simple analogy- You come to my house on tuesday. You take a picture of me standing by the kitchen table. You come to my house friday and I'm sitting at the table with a friend. You take a picture of me sitting at the table. Later you ask my friend "hey when I came by that time what was LHC doing?" My friend says I was standing. Now the pictures from tuesday show me standing. So because I was standing tuesday I must be standing friday because someone said so. Ignore fridays photos. They're fake.
That's just how I see it. It may be simplistic but if you want to reach people the most effective way then simple is best. It's called inference. You infer that since he was standing one day he must be standing the next day.
Go ahead and bring on the circular logic the way you did to my last post. You deflected that one so well I gave up in exasperation. Shoot you even refuted yourself. What was the name of this thread again? Fake what?
And you had the audacity to say you didn't say one set of photos are real and the other isn't.
I don't doubt that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. But I don't think this is the solution.


[edit on 1/22/06 by longhaircowboy]

Just a guess here but me thinks that if it can be proved that Kennedy was standing in Dallas then it supports the Green Man theory. If Kennedy wasn't standing then the Green Man theory has zero validity. Did I figure it out?

What is the Green Man theory?

Once again to demand the answer of why the president was edited out "if he was standing" requires a philosophical answer. We are presenting here the evidence from first eyewitness testimonies taken on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1963. That is to say evidence not philosophy.

and again.

I therefore refer Readers to page 1 and 2 of this thread as well as previous posts on this page.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Just a guess here but me thinks that if it can be proved that Kennedy was standing in Dallas then it supports the Green Man theory.

your guess is incorrect.

If Kennedy wasn't standing then the Green Man theory has zero validity. Did I figure it out?

How so? How has Kennedys position as accounted by the first witnesses got anything to do with the Green man theory. This thread is speaking of first account witnesses and what they had to say. Once again it is evidence not theory. Nice try though.

And while I'm at it I'll say again-photos of him standing somewhere else has zero relevance to what he did in Dallas.

As a matter of fact it does go along way to establish pattern. Once again we are speaking of the first accounts of wtinesses, don't you think it would be better for you to discredit them, rather than the messenger.

Simple analogy- You come to my house on tuesday. You take a picture of me standing by the kitchen table. You come to my house friday and I'm sitting at the table with a friend. You take a picture of me sitting at the table. Later you ask my friend "hey when I came by that time what was LHC doing?" My friend says I was standing. Now the pictures from tuesday show me standing. So because I was standing tuesday I must be standing friday because someone said so. Ignore fridays photos. They're fake.

Once again nice try. You are theorizing and sidetracking from the simple fact that we have posted here what the witnesses said on the day.

That's just how I see it. It may be simplistic but if you want to reach people the most effective way then simple is best. It's called inference. You infer that since he was standing one day he must be standing the next day.

You also seem to miss the point. WE and I repeat WE do not infer anything. We are simply showing what the first account witnesses are saying on the day.

Go ahead and bring on the circular logic the way you did to my last post. You deflected that one so well I gave up in exasperation. Shoot you even refuted yourself. What was the name of this thread again? Fake what?

You gave up in exasperation? That is one weird statement to make there.

And you had the audacity to say you didn't say one set of photos are real and the other isn't.

Where did I say in this thread of evidence that one set of photos is real and one set of photos were not.

But I don't think this is the solution.

You don't think this is the solution? What is the solution you are speaking of. Once again I direct you back to the thread starting post. This thread is about first witness accounts. Not solutions, just evidence. A point that seems to be overlooked and sidetracked from.

Now you have bought the Green man theory into play. A fact that has not been mentioned by me or Jim at all in this thread which is about evidence not theories. Is this another tactic to discredit and detract from the facts spoken of by the first account witnesses on the day?

external Source
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

www.pnl-nlp.org...








[edit on 22-1-2006 by Mayet]

Cool now I'm a disinfo agent. Whoohoo.
Man you just don't get it. Why manufacture evidence of a crime when there's already plenty. What do the words Zapruders fake film in the title of this thread mean if not that you believe that film to be fake?
How do we know that the Miami and Hawaii pics are real?
You obviously didn't read your own post. Those witness accounts don't match each other and they sure don't prove the photos phony.
And why do you keep saying you didn't say one set of photos was real and the isn't when that is what this whole thread is about. You're trying to discredit the photo evidence from Dallas using uncorroborative eyewitness testimony.
The only thing those photos from Miami and Hawaii prove is that according to the camera he was standing there. I think your use of those photos is dishonest to say the least.
As to deflection you're the one who twists my posts around and denies the very things you yourself say.

[edit on 1/22/06 by longhaircowboy]

[edit on 1/22/06 by longhaircowboy]

I always find it best to step in someone elses shoes so im gonna pretend i believe that no pictures or films have been altered.OK so what does my side have to offer...well now i have a like a million experts and ive got a mountain of visual evidence more than any other murder that i can think of and ive also had 40 years to work on my case.What the heck have we done but just further confuse things.

Now being on the side that believes all the visual evidence hasnt been altered and the experts havent solved anything in 40 years but they seem to be rather offended that anyone would have the nerve to look for themselves.

My experts insist that THEY will tell ME what I see and because they are experts i will blindly believe them...

OK i cant take anymore,im already jumping ship.


Now that i can use my own senses freely i can see that it gets harder to understand who is exactly on who's side here.We have one guy bringing up our Green Man theory that only helps prove the hoax and actually now stating that maybe previous pictures of Kennedy in previous motorcades have been altered.So you have gone from having no pictures edited to all pictures but the ones filming the actual assassination being altered.On top of that the guy who's statements caused the previous motorcade pictures to be posted just cant get enough of bringing the issue up even though it does nothing to help his case.I say again are you suggesting the govt went back to the other motorcade pictures and edited Kennedy from sitting to standing to make it look the opposite of his uncommon behaviour in Dealey Plaza.

Guys your side wishes you would drop any mention of the previous motorcades and would really like you to stop posting and giving us more reason to post more things that your side is not going to like.


Keep in mind that in every thread ive posted my main concern is that people that are truly interested will get the evidence in question and look with their own eyes becuase the experts that dont want you looking for yourself and would rather tell you what you see have had 40 years.If you did the hiring for your company and a guy had that past record would you hire him.


Excite boy...what can i say man your my favorite poster and our greatest ally as far as im concerned,keep up the great work..it's classic the way you feint boredom and declare how silly it all is but yet you ramble on for days like an obsessed madman making your side look even worse,so please keep going dude it makes my face sore from laughing.Ive read that you claim we make a mockery of all the good work done to solve the case already.Millions of experts,mountains of "un edited" visual evidence and 40 years and counting of investigation time and it's plain to see just where this mockery you claim started.



So with all you have done and said so far my only question to you is:


Which side are you really on?

You know, I amnot seeing disinformation, but differences in opionions about conjecture.
I think we should back off that particular tactic and discuss the different ideas, huh?


I feel confident that everyone thinks this is a good and civilized idea, right?

Sorry Bucky but I don't take sides.

Green Man theory that only helps prove the hoax and actually now stating that maybe previous pictures of Kennedy in previous motorcades have been altered.So you have gone from having no pictures edited to all pictures but the ones filming the actual assassination being altered.On top of that the guy who's statements caused the previous motorcade pictures to be posted just cant get enough of bringing the issue up even though it does nothing to help his case.I say again are you suggesting the govt went back to the other motorcade pictures and edited Kennedy from sitting to standing to make it look the opposite of his uncommon behaviour in Dealey Plaza.

I never stated that. And furthermore I don't have a case you do.
Even simpler analogy-
You take a picture of me standing drinking a beer at a bar on tuesday.
Thursday you see me at the bar and take a picture of me sitting drinking a beer. There are a few other people at the table.
Saturday you ask a friend if they saw me standing at the bar on thursday drinking a beer. one says yeah. One says well I did see him get up and get a beer. One said they thought a glass was getting tipped over and jumped to save it from hitting the floor.
The other person present was busy trying to keep the beer from wetting them and just jumped.
Did anyone see me Tuesday standing at the bar? Just the photographer.
Now does it make sense? No?
I'm not the one suggesting any photos were altered you are.
Again- why are you so desperate to manufacture evidence of a crime when there is more than enough all ready?
And I didn't bring up the Miami and Hawaii photos you did. Don't you even read what you post?

[edit on 1/22/06 by longhaircowboy]

You and your friends should stay out of the bar.

i have read this thread an related threads/websites on this particular JFK topic all nite ; and ive viewed the evidence available to myself very closely with the greatest scruitiny i could muster

i think that the evidence collected by mayet and jim is very informative and helpful

i honestly believe they are good researchers who have looked over the information in depth; and have done a fairly good job Asking Questions

personally i do not know what is truth anymore; cept the fact i dont know

the only way to really know what really happened would have been to be there
and even if your watching face 2 face; theres those guys like david blane or houdini that can still fool us
right in our faces

but seriously asking questions and thinking about things like this; is the way to go; if anything it increases our critical thinking capability

good work

oh and please debate in a civilized constructive way

hopefully mr thomas has solved this issue; and i can look forward to skillful jests of conspiratorial debate

mayet; i totally understand u getting upset about the "was jfk sitting or standing" issue; and trust me you were clear with your statement ; that you were simply showing it had happened before ; setting a pattern
oh and u had 2 restate your comment 6 times lol

good detective tactic , setting patterns
it doesnt mean anything definate; but hey; quantum physicsists dont even know exactly where the electron is either; cept that its "Probability to be in a particular point is X"
well patterns only lend to propability

anyways; next time they come and ask a question; just answer them once or twice; after that ignore them until they can conjure up a new question lol

here ill ask a question thats been bugging me

IF the eyewitnesses were correct about JFK standing when he was first shot; wouldnt that make the videos a fraud?

IF the eyewitnesses were incorrect about JFK standing when he was first shot; wouldnt that add to the credibility of the videos?

AND if your a shadowy gov't who murders its own president in front of everyone than twists the whole thing around 500000 times and fakes evidence etc;
Couldnt that same lying cabal have planted Fake eyewitness testimony?
just to further confuse us and drive us deeper into the pit?

its possible lol

fun thread indeed