It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

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


No wonder my finger and keyboards complaining to me, the keyboard was ready to walk off the job for getting hit so much.


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


It does raise shadows of doubt when combined with all the other seemingly mounting evidence from other researchers over the faking of the film.


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 these witnesses, quite independent of each other and among the closest to the assassination, who were strangely not called before the Warren Commission to testify, do state catergorically and are truthful and correct in saying that the president was standing, then it does cast a hard shadow of doubt on the authenticity of photos and films of the day that show otherwise. added to the mounting evidence agains tthe genuineness of the Zapruder film for one. Just the quote below is enough to raise eyebrows


External Source

A declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting. Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's findings is included in Assassination Science.


www.assassinationscience.com...
Great Read for everyone to take a look at and make up their own minds, to see for themselves.


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


No, not really, the videos were deemed for years to be authentic, its only as technology has progressed into the hands of the people that serious questioning of the evidence including the Warren Commisison and the Photographs have been bought into the playing field. There is to much other ,ounting evidence to cast the shadows of doubt already onto the zap film. .


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?


These witnesses WERE NOT called to the Warren Commission Why Not?




[edit on 23-1-2006 by Mayet]




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   


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

Which side are you really on?


You know Mayet...all your talk about "disinformation tactics" is funny because you are guilty of what you accuse others of. Asking me what side I'm on? That's funny. I didn't know there were sides. You try to make others think I'm on the "other" side. Classic "disinformation tactic" if I ever saw one. Plus, look at most of your replies to my quetions...more classic "disinformation tactics."

And your GREEN MAN THEORY? The guy is moving suspiciously?
He's clapping....quite obviously clapping. Now that IS suspiscious. Is he clapping because he enjoys seeing the president OR is he clapping because the president is being shot? Is his clapping a signal to one of the many snipers to open fire? Does he have a gun in one of his rings that goes off when he claps his hands together? Is he a Genie and when he claps his hands he can do magic kind of like Samantha on Bewitched twitching her nose? Yes. I think that's it. He claps his hands and hypnotizes everyone including all the cameras into beleiving the president is sitting when he in FACT is really standing.

You solved it Mayet. That 40 years of research of yours has PAID OFF! You have found the Genie that not only fired all the guns but also hypnotized the world and a bunch of cameras into believing that the president was sitting. Mystery solved.....

IMHO, I would think that someone that has researched this for 40 years would come up with more than a green man clapping...but hey, if you're happy, then there you go.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Okay, TC came in here and said something and we have everybody in their dog acting like it didn't get stated plain and clear.

with all tit for tat behind us - NO MORE ACCUSING ANYBODY OF DISINFORMATION TACTICS

In fact, and because this makes a whole lot of sense I'm betting the admins of this board would agree, it would probably be best if you ever DO think some one is engaging in disinformation tactics that you alert the staff privately via u2u or complaint instead of using it as part of your argument! Because right now both sides are in breech of the T&C due to personal attacks.

So please - as your friendly Administrator, TC, who is full of love and light these days has kindly pointed out - STOP NOW!



[edit on 1-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy


So with all you have done and said so far my only question to you is:
Which side are you really on?


You know Mayet...all your talk about "disinformation tactics" is funny because you are guilty of what you accuse others of. Asking me what side I'm on?


I am afraid That is one more thing you have misquoted me on that I have never said. I am afraid you are not quoting me there, you are confused and have made a mistake.



[edit on 23-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   


Excitable exerts that everything is ridiculous and silly, classic disinfo techniques.


You're right Mayet...you never said this on post# 1937687. It's another conspiracy! If you have no integrity...why should anyone even consider any of your theories?

Mods....I only put in this quote to show Mayet has lied. The topic will not leave my fingers again!

Oh yeah...Mayet:



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Valhall

Because right now both sides are in breech of the T&C due to personal attacks


Everybody here has their own opinions, independent of each other. Now If i created another user account to back up my own statements or take down someone who I don't agree with, then I would be taking sides. Then I would be breaking the T&C of a site that has been my home for quite sometime now and I am afraid I have too much respect and decency to do that sort of thing. I have been ordered by U2u from a super moderator not to speak of a certain subject which appears touchy to all concerned so I won't, once again i have respect.

I have not made any personal attacks against anyone. I have been on the recieving end of quite a few and yet my position is still clear and clarified.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy


Excitable exerts that everything is ridiculous and silly, classic disinfo techniques.

You're right Mayet...you never said this on post# 1937687. It's another conspiracy! If you have no integrity...why should anyone even consider any of your theories?
Mods....I only put in this quote to show Mayet has lied. The topic will not leave my fingers again!
Oh yeah...Mayet:


You quoted me above as saying the following statment.



So with all you have done and said so far my only question to you is:
Which side are you really on?


I never ever said that statement.


You're right Mayet...you never said this on post# 1937687.


I never said " So with all you have done and said so far my only question to you is: Which side are you really on? " which is what you quoted me as saying.

I am merely clarifying my point here against an accusation made of me, stating I said a statement I never said. I am sorry if this seems to be dragged out but I should have the right to redress when called a liar. Once again I never said it as others who clearly read this thread will be able to see for themselves.

Now to steer conversation back to the topic at hand, I asked a question last. Why were the Newmans and the Chisms and Jean Newman and many other close witnesses to the assassination including Mary Moorman who took the famous moorman photo, never called before the Warren Commssion to give evidence and to be cross examined on their first account eyewitness statements.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
This discussion is a good example of how NOT to discuss things here. Your mission is to deny ignorance, each of you in your own way. That does not mean to make it or take it personal when someone does not agree with your positions or Theories.

For the sake of all that is civil. This thread is now closed.

If you'd like to continue to discuss these JFK issues, please feel free to do so in other existing discussions. If you do, remember stay on topic, do not ever take it or make it personal with other members, keep it civil, and please Deny Ignorance.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
I have been ordered by U2u from a super moderator not to speak of a certain subject which appears touchy to all concerned so I won't, once again i have respect.


For the record: The polite U2U you received from UM_Gazz (not a supermoderator) was a simple request to stop focusing on accusing members of being "Disinformation Agents", after he complimented you on your posts.

Once you confirm this was the case, I'll close this thread again.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Mayet
I have been ordered by U2u from a super moderator not to speak of a certain subject which appears touchy to all concerned so I won't, once again i have respect.


For the record: The polite U2U you received from UM_Gazz (not a supermoderator) was a simple request to stop focusing on accusing members of being "Disinformation Agents", after he complimented you on your posts.

Once you confirm this was the case, I'll close this thread again.

Thanks.



the u2u stated


drop the "dis-info" stuff!


Which was what I spoke of. I complied. Yes it was polite, it said "I said please".

No I wasn't attempting to raise drama at all, it is not my idea or style to do so. I have respect when someone asks me to do something. Um Gazz, Valhall and TC all said drop it. So i did. In every post here in this thread I have been clear concise and to the point with politeness and manners. Hopefully it has raised some questions in peoples minds about the event and will lead to more close analysis in the future in all areas.

Thank you for your time to all those reading this thread.

Yes its Confirmed ...you may now close the thread.

Oh I do apologise that i mistook Um Gazz for a supermoderator. The Gaz's mod positions always confuse me.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
In every post here in this thread I have been clear concise and to the point with politeness and manners.

Name-calling is generally not a polite way to engage in a collaborative discussion with an emphasis on manners. Implying that members who disagree with you are disinformation agents is most-certainly name-calling on a board such as this. I'm sure there are many alternate ways to express your disagreement than to degrade into tossing about accusations.

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join