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 - Zapruder Film Stablized

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
The object/head/majority of liquid matter, solid matter and tissue ALWAYS FOLLOW THE PATH of the bullet.

MAYBE! As most of the wittnesses weren't real sure were the shots were coming from, maybe the drivers thought they were coming from the front and slowed down.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by porsteamboy]




Mod Edit: Please Don't Quote Entire Posts

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
I mean, Jackie had to hear the buzz or whistle of the first shot hitting JFK, and surely she guessed right then what was happening. Poor Jackie. Nobody deserves to see what she saw that day. I wish she'd not been looking at him when the head shot came.

If you want to talk conspiracy, what about Jackie Kennedy, she had a good motive for having JFK knocked off. If you look at the Zapuder film after the first JFK hit, he slumps over to his left tword Jackie and she pushed him back up for the head shot. If she had let him alone he would be alive today! Just a thought!

[edit on 12-4-2006 by porsteamboy]



Mod Edit: Please Quote Sparingly

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If you guys know more than William Cooper did then good for you. Everyone is welcome to their opinions. If he says the driver did it and I was able to come to the same conclusion by myself without his influence then I know the driver did it.

If you look around on the web, you can find just about any cockamamie theory in the world, which can be used to back up any cockamamie theory you might come up with on your own. All it proves is two kooks can come up with similar theories, given enough time and a lack of good evidence.

If you hunt around, you'll find that William Cooper isn't (or wasn't) exactly the most trusted source for insightful analysis and comment. In fact, you'll probably find most people calling him a nutcase and a liar. So rather than being encouraged that Cooper came up with a similar "theory," you might want to view it as a negative. I might know less than Cooper did, but probably because I know a lot less stuff that's just plain wrong.

And as for proving the driver DIDN'T do it, it's impossible to prove a negative anyway. If you have any more POSITIVE evidence than Cooper's wild ramblings and a grainy film, I'm sure we'd love to take a look at it. At the moment, you're giving the guy opportunity, even though that's doubtful. Next you need to provide some evidence of motive. Why would he want to shoot JFK? Who was he involved with? What connections are there? That's positive proof of your assertion.

As for me, I think that "Dark Complected Man" everyone mentions was John Titor.




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I believe there was more than one shooter, but not the driver. In a shooting/stress situation, people react most of the time with inaction (ie. stopping or deer-in-the-headlights).

As for the secret brotherhood, aliens, and enslavement of the Earth...I'm not sure I can agree on that one.

Sorry but not buying the drivers actions...

secret service is to TAKE A BULLET for the president if need be... there job is to not put him in more danger.

If you do not believe in ufo's, aliens, secret government, the occult, nor control over humanity for all of its history then about 1/2 of this site probably doesn't interest you then I would guess.



Mod Edit: Guidelines For Quotes


[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
For myself I will need someone to prove to me that HE DID NOT DO IT.


How do you prove a negative?


Anyway, I would like to see it proved that he did (innocenent until...) or at least anything that lead you to that conclusion you came to on your own.


works both ways man does it not?

you haven't been able to prove who did it but when I offer a good scenario you immediately reject it as too SIMPLE.

then who did do it?

some guy of questionable ability from 1000 feet away?

Most hits of high level people are always done close up, look at Oswald himself or Reagan or the pope or a long list of HITS in the history of the world...

that is HOW A PRO does it... correct?

If you want to succeed in an operation you do not take low percentage actions hoping to win you increase your odds.

besides I don't believe the Zapruder film is whole anyways... I have reason to believe it has been edited eg. frames removed.

Also, I am looking at the background of Mr. Zapruder himself at the moment and I'll see what I can find.

All it would take is the removal of several frames to make it difficult to discern the driver's act in this sad drama.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If you do not believe in ufo's, aliens, secret government, the occult, nor control over humanity for all of its history then about 1/2 of this site probably doesn't interest you then I would guess.


I didn't say I didn't believe. I just said I don't think I can buy all those options being involved in JFKs assassination.


As for the driver's actions, the first action is usually assess since running (or driving) off blind and possibly into a trap would be worse (think running madly from the bear...straight into the minefield.)

I think he slowed to assess what the commotion in the back was, and then the final shot hit, spurring some chaos.




Mod Edit: That Goes For You Too, Zedd


[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Pssst! Keep this under your hat.




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Man thats a real messed up video! Ace work in finding and posting it
and to me it poses two very serious questions.

1) No one heard or saw the first shot, even Kennedy looked down at it (Alive) and lent towards Jackie.... She then PUSHES him upright! WTF?? Pushes him upright after he gets plugged by a round?

2) The head shot. Was it much ,uch closer and from a more powerful weapon? Look at the damage to the throat / upper torso from the first shot... and then just look at that train wreck of a second shot...To me thats loooking like the difference between getting hit by a 5.56 SA80 round, and then getting plugged by a 7.62 A1 96 sniper round...

If the first had been as powerful as the second surley Kennedy would of been thrown further forward than that?

Oh and well done... It's finally laid to rest all those driver did it threads...theres no way on earth that second shot was from the driver...



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Judging by the reaction of JFK's head I'd say it's pretty safe to say it's a 270-.308 rifle round. And that's from personal experience. Anything smaller than a 9mm or 38 handgun round wouldn't kick his head back as it did. If the driver shot him with a pistol chambered for a rifle round .270+ the recoil would be so bad you'd see it from a mile away, not to mention one hell of a flame from the muzzle.

As for the drivers odd driving I believe I have a simple explanation for that as well. To me, after seeing the videos many times, he was ovbiously slowing down to make it easier for the shooters ahead of the car to get a accurate shot, once they had their "kill shot" and the driver confirmed it visually there was no need to stick around so he sped off.

Okay we do agree that the shot was local... so we are moving forward here.

We also agree that the driver instead of doing what was best to help the President in fact did the opposite.

So in your estimation exactly where did the bullet come from?





You Guessed It: Quotes


[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by porsteamboy

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If you guys know more than William Cooper did then good for you. Everyone is welcome to their opinions. If he says the driver did it and I was able to come to the same conclusion by myself without his influence then I know the driver did it. For myself I will need someone to prove to me that HE DID NOT DO IT.
I'm interested in how you came to that conclusion! Mrs. Connally gave testimony that she saw JFK react to the first shot and she gave testimony that a seperate shot hit her husband and she thought the shots came from the rear right. You think she would have heard a shot that came from the seat right in front of her! Wait, she was in on it! Get real!


Did you read recent comments coming from Mr. Connally before he died??

If so then you would not be so confident at what you wrote here.

Secondly, I am not arguing whether shots came from Oswald (or others in the depository for that matter..), or even the grassy knoll either because it is highly likely shots came from those places.

I am speaking of the kill shot, the insurance the done deal, the shot that would put somebody in an electric chair if need be...

that kinda shot...

the rest is all part of the cover story used to deceive and confuse everyone since.

Like I already wrote here already, if you are going to assasinate someone YOU HAVE TO GET IN CLOSE to do it and get the job done.

What part of that do people not get anyways???

Look how they took out Oswald and Ruby and even Robert Kennedy...

did they use a sniper from 100, 500 or 1000 feet? no because it is LOW PERCENTAGE odds of success.

People have to stop this idea that snipers can do anything and that they never miss, the facts are that snipers are a last resort and their success rate is not that high. If they were as good as people here want to believe we would be seeing a lot more sniper work going on in this world I'm sure of it.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by porsteamboy
If you want to talk conspiracy, what about Jackie Kennedy, she had a good motive for having JFK knocked off. If you look at the Zapuder film after the first JFK hit, he slumps over to his left tword Jackie and she pushed him back up for the head shot. If she had let him alone he would be alive today! Just a thought!

Jackie most definitely was in on it and her reward was marriage to occult billionaire Onassis and the millions that followed.

Cooper has no credibility problems in terms of his intent and objectives unlike many others that have worked on this conspiracy. All the same I don't believe he was right on everything either and he is not a prophet as he may have made himself out to be.

The issue with Cooper though is that he was one of the smart ones that actually applied logic to the assassination because he knew the kill shot had to be a high percentage shot.

These guys crowing about snipers and guys firing hand guns from 100 feet away don't know what they are talking about.

In terms of credibility then why do you contradict yourself in your post... one minute you feel sorry for Jackie that she was there and the next minute you suggest she was in on it and actually propped JFK up for the kill shot. So which is it is she is a good guy or is she shilling for the brotherhood?




Mod edit: Trim Those Quotes!

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
If you hunt around, you'll find that William Cooper isn't (or wasn't) exactly the most trusted source for insightful analysis and comment. In fact, you'll probably find most people calling him a nutcase and a liar. So rather than being encouraged that Cooper came up with a similar "theory," you might want to view it as a negative. I might know less than Cooper did, but probably because I know a lot less stuff that's just plain wrong.

In regards Cooper, the facts are this: he was a pioneer in this field, he worked in the field, he brought forward major discoveries in the field, he was trusted in the field as people sent him info. His greatest insight in this case is that he linked it to the military industrial complex which is the suspected secret government and the only group that could have acted as agent for all interested groups in this issue. I still find it interesting that Castro after all these years has existed to thumb his nose at Washington despite the Cuban missile crisis as just an example of the brokering that went on behind the scenes in this tragedy.

Like this site when any view on an issue surfaces there is ALWAYS an equal and opposing view that almost immediately pops up for whatever reason, that does not make Cooper wrong or anybody else that posts here either. In regards Cooper his intention was without question that I have been able to determine and I'm sure that everything he came across wasn't legit, but as conspiracy buffs we should also know that the brotherhood is also actively and professionally engaged in disinfo too. That is their major offensive to protect themselves and their secrets - disinfo is the method. I am also of the opinion that disinfo is often found on this site either delivered innocently or deliberately. For me it would be a most egregarious waste of my time to do that considering my objective - finding the truth.

In regards this proving a negative as some kind of false logic... where did this come from in the first place??

If you do not agree with my suggestion of who committed the deed then tell me who did then and PROVE IT to the rest of us. I don't care who you are, if you don't agree with what I say then that is fine but until you know who did it and can PROVE it then you have to consider anybody that could have done it. That sir is called LOGIC. No one has to agree with me but within bounds we know who we can reasonably attach this crime too. Unless it was one of the innocents in the crowd watching the procession??

I have to assume that the 'proving negatives mantra' some talk about is an attempt at applying logic but I'm not convinced that it is an accurate usage of the system that logic purports to be.

No offense meant.

Frankly, it could have been the guy sitting in the front seat besides the driver too, whoever he was... the problem we have is that we have films and I'm not certain if we can trust them 100%.

I think that everyone can be certain about one thing that this was an inside job because that is why it has never been solved. The authorities can cover it up and they have no incentive to solve this crime. It is left to the public to do this. Who made the ultimate order to do this is most difficult to determine but had to be in the secret government that much I believe.

All the same I believe the fatal shot came from close by and I see no reason to believe other wise at this point.

You make reference to John Titor but that is not at all far fetched in this story... time travel may have been used to affect that event to ensure its success, to cover up evidence and to befuddle the solving of the crime. We all know that Montauk existed, many of us believe that time travel was attempted there, and there is strong reason to believe that Montauk has in fact moved underground. I could also argue that time travel if it is a capability of mankind may have affected 911 also. But that is a bit far out for people that think 911 is all about whether a skyscraper can fall by itself if the fires are hot enough...




Mod Edit: Quote What You Need, Need What You Quote


[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
As for the driver's actions, the first action is usually assess since running (or driving) off blind and possibly into a trap would be worse (think running madly from the bear...straight into the minefield.)

I think he slowed to assess what the commotion in the back was, and then the final shot hit, spurring some chaos.

But is not the car all bullet proofed and probably bomb proofed too?

Is not the driver on a wire? is he not taking orders from somebody on the ground?

I have to believe if he stopped then he was told to, otherwise I cannot see it logical that he would do that as a protocol.

We must not confuse human nature with military etc., training. That is why they train you so that in a problem you DO NOT DO what the typical guy would do... can we agree on this or not?

The spooks have spotters, supers whatever you wanna call them that give orders to the others... the driver does what he is told to do... if he does what he wants to do then he jeapordizes the operation... right?



Mod Edit: Please Trim Quotes

[edit on 4/13/2006 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
That second shot was a high calibre high velocity shot.

I've seen hand gun round injuries to the face and head, and they do not do that amount of damage. I have also seen the damage a 7.62 round does to a person, and sadly yes it does make that 'splash'.

That was no pistol 'close in' shot - sorry I could never ever believe that. Oh and if you think a sniper could not be the best option for that job, man you live in a shelterd world.

Gunny Sargeant Carlos Hathcock any one? this man was and IS still a super legend in the world of law enforcement and military snipers. This man was Marine corp trained, could hit running men at long ranges, and had 93 comfirmed kills from Vietnam. He trained hundreds of snipers in his time, and taught them all he knew from his years as a sniper. To say that long range fire should be ruled out in the Kennedy assassination is pure BS.

This was a good well planned multi angled sniper take down - The first shot appeared not to kill Kennedy so the second man beaded him and took a good head shot. That to me would be a good explanation as to why they appear a few seconds apart - They wanted to see if one shot would be enough: It wasn't so the second man took his shot.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
In regards this proving a negative as some kind of false logic... where did this come from in the first place??

I think it was that total moron, Socrates. The general gist of this notion is that in order for me to prove that something DIDN'T happen, I would have to provide positive proof of every possible way that it couldn't happen, but I'm immediately and inherently limited to what I consider to be "possible." So I could never provide you with a complete field or list of evidence that covers every potential situation.

I did mention that you should check the line of fire between JFK and the driver at the moment the shot would have to be fired. Connally' head is clearly in the way.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Okay we do agree that the shot was local... so we are moving forward here.

We also agree that the driver instead of doing what was best to help the President in fact did the opposite.

So in your estimation exactly where did the bullet come from?

Agreed and agreed.

The final shot was from the back area. It's hard to tell the exact quadrant due to the side view, but definately in the back due to the exit wound.

Now, I think it was two different guns and therefore two different shooters. The first shot didn't hit the car, anyone else, or exit as severely. It looked like JFK got a bee sting, some suprise and hunched forward. Jackie looks concerned and props him up possibly thinking heart attack or something.

The first thing people do is look at the face and eyes to see if the person is alert when something happens.

She props him up and there is concern something happened. The front passenger looks back, the driver looks back. No Secret Service comes running from the sides so the split-second thinking is a medical issue.

Then boom. The big-no-mistaking-it's-a-bullet hit. Then chaos. Jackie diving for help for JFK, the back guys running, the driver and passengers duck, the car speeds up.

The first hit was a smaller round in my opinion.


And yes MadGreebo, Gunny Sargeant Carlos Hathcock. Amazing man. He was the basis for Tom Beringer's character in the movie Sniper.

On that note:

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
did they use a sniper from 100, 500 or 1000 feet? no because it is LOW PERCENTAGE odds of success.

People have to stop this idea that snipers can do anything and that they never miss, the facts are that snipers are a last resort and their success rate is not that high. If they were as good as people here want to believe we would be seeing a lot more sniper work going on in this world I'm sure of it.


It is not a low percentage option. In fact, the sniper programs were restarted in Vietnam due to HIGH PERCENTAGE of success. That means one sniper would expend about 1 round (there are some decimal places in there like 1.245) per kill.

Prior to that, snipers in general were considered cowardly and un-moral yet the tactic was used time and time again. Daniel Morgan's Virginia riflemen used this tactic with great success in the 1700's. The success of snipers was so high that eventually the morality was dealt with and a full program created. They are NOT a last resort. In many cases a first resort and there are a lot of sniping cases going on.

In Iraq, snipers kept whole battalions pinned in their forts for days during Desert Storm. They didn't have to kill everyone to be a success. More recently they were used on ships to shoot mines out of the ocean with .50 Cal rifles. Success. Every SWAT or HRT type team in the world has snipers and counter-snipers. Why? Because they work and have a very high chance of success. Navy SEALs, Marines, FBI, Rangers. Then go on a world scale to all the military and counter-terror groups. Mossad, GSG-9, SAS, SBS, Korean Rangers, etc, etc, etc, etc....

Why would they all make heavy use of snipers if there is such a low percentage of success? The simple answer? It's not true...



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   


Oh and well done... It's finally laid to rest all those driver did it threads...theres no way on earth that second shot was from the driver...


Thank you...thank you...thank you! I am so tired of "the driver shot JFK" theory....

Now...whoever on here thinks Jackie was involved in the conspiracy =



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   


JFK - Zapruder Film Stablized


ZZZ...great job. Great find! If Mayet still hangs on here, I'd love for him/her to watch that "green man" closely...and you can see as I've said all along that he is simply a bystander and he is simply clapping as JFK goes by...such a shame you had to waste all that time putting together that massively ridiculous website on your green man theory!


ZZZ...if I could give you a Way Above I would...but I guess mods can't get a way above?? Oh well...thanks for the find!!



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Great find, I've heard that some people had done work on this to "sort out" the problems that existed.

The driver didn't do it.
The driver was in on it or went into a state of shock. You watch any event prior to this and after where an important figure was in a situation where a gun goes off, load bang or anything of the nature the guy goes like a bat out of hell. This guy didn't till after the second+ shot hit JFK. That's the key moment and probably the key guy.

Oswald was there, but don't overlook his prior links to BushCo and his prior involvement with the C.I.A. Also the fact C.I.A. agents were booked flights to and from, arriving within a week and leaving that day. C.I.A. agents who were directly involved with Cuba and lost co-workers because of JFK.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Here's my two cents.

People have to stop this idea that snipers can do anything and that they never miss, the facts are that snipers are a last resort and their success rate is not that high.


Dude, I'm not even military trained....just a hillbilly in Missouri...but you wouldn't want to wind up in my crosshairs at anything less than 300 yds with my handy-dandy Remington 700 chambered in .243 Win. My success rate for fatal shots on human size targets is 100%. Moving targets at that.

NC



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join