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 new video proof?

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by astronomine
 


Yeah, it's Albert Thomas that winks I posted about this on page 4 of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you get a chance, look over the book by LBJ's (ex) lawyer, "Blood, Money & Power" by Barr McClellan

He discussed (among other things) the infamous 'wink' that Congressman Albert Thomas did at the swearing in, a somber occasion for most, winking at LBJ. You can see LBJ's face and left cheek breaking into a big smile.


Moving right along, here's my impression of where the shots originated. (In blue):



The suspected shot from the TSBD had to be one of the worst locations. The shooter had mere seconds to get off any shots and had to track the motion from left to right. The actual shot from the TSBD was probably a diversionary shot to 'set up' the patsy. It may have been blanks or fired into the grass on the south side of Elm Street. Witnesses on the 4th floor reported the sound of a gunshot to their right, not to the left (where the sniper's nest was found).

The sight picture from the storm drain under the Triple Overpass had the absolute best location and sight picture since the limo was moving straight towards the shooter. There was a car parked over the manhole cover to that drain and there was an escape route that opened out into the rail yards to the left.

The shot from the Knoll was probably a diversionary shot

(Since I used an existing picture to contrast the trajectories, I did not place the limo at the precise location where the shots may have hit.)

Confusing? Some people theorize three teams of spotters and shooters. There may even have been two groups of shooters unaware of each other.



[edit on 27-6-2008 by Badge01]




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by no one special
 


He had already been shot in the neck at that point. you can see him grabbing his throat.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
well the window only needs to be opened enough for the slender barrel of a rifle to pass beneath guys.....doesn't prove/change anything imo...not to mention it isnt the clearest most high res image grab ever either..i mean you cant make out any detail at all



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GodMode
 



Please read the whole thread. The photograph in the screen grab is not the 6th floor window.

The 6th floor window was partially open.

The main topic is a non-issue. The thread is now being used to talk about the event in general. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Here's another interesting photo, allegedly from the JFK autopsy.



Try this experiment.
1. Take a piece of paper and make a hole in it using a pen or pencil;
2. Now, take a ruler graded in millimeters and measure the diameter of the hole;
3. Note where you put the ruler.

Now, look at the photo above and see where the ruler is placed. It's almost an 1/2 inch to 1 inch away from either of the holes.

WHO MEASURES a hole by putting the ruler so far away from it that you can't eye-ball the top and bottom of the hole diameter against the millimeter markings of the ruler?

Nobody.

Thus, it's theorized that the ruler was placed there for another reason, possibly to cover up another hole or strange mark in the back that may not have been present on JFK's back.

Of the two holes, comparing it with the hole in the jacket:



It appears that the smaller hole is the one from one of the bullets.

Puzzling, and more evidence - right before your eyes - that the autopsy and the autopsy findings were altered or compromised. But if you didn't have someone call attention to the placement of the ruler it might escape a casual glance.

In this composite I made, here is how you'd actually measure a bullet hole, by putting the ruler right up next to the hole:








[edit on 27-6-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bknapple32
 


yup!!! apple, i have heard thst as well. Dd anyone notice that George H. W. Bush used to be in the CIA????

Hint....he's Daddy of the shrub....the presumptive president....heh, heh, heh!!!!


Did you also happen to notice the picture of a man that looks like Bush 41 standing in front of the TSBD?

And how might the Bush family firm, Brown Bros. Harriman (founded by Prescott Bush & Averall Harriman), be involved. This group of Skull and Boners' may have had operational control of The Bay of Pigs "fiasco" - Operation Zapata. Brown Bros Harriman did the "dirty work" for the PTB for many years.

The planned invasion of Cuba was a collaboration of the ruling elite and their bankers, "The Boys", and the CIA. JFK's refusal of air support for the invasion was a betrayal of the PTB to take back Cuba. What kind of deal might have been cut to take out JFK for his failure to follow the will of the PTB. Add to that his possible removal of troops from Vietnam, issuing US Treasury Notes against the will of the FED bankers, and the dismantling the CIA, to name the most important.

The assassination of JFK was a "family affair", with retribution taken on a bright sunny day in Dallas with members of Operation Zapata, on hand, to witness the payback.

Many say that the problem with President Kennedy was, he thought he was President of the United States.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


how is it that in my video , you can clearly see a closed window vs an open one. High res or not, there is an obvious difference. Yet in this other's post, we see an open window off a screen cap, yet the video is now much higher quality... I want to know how the poster got a much better video than the one that is posted in the OP.


We have the OP video in which the cap shows a closed 6th floor window, and another picture, better quality that shows it opened.... Photoshopped? I think my investigation is required before just assuming the most recent video is proof that trumps the original.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


to respond to your interesting post about jfk's jacket. i offer this explanation. As an anthropologist student studying to get my Ph D in archeology, i find that taking pictures with rulers are common practice. For the picture itself, the ruler does not have to be in perfect position to measure the object. It is simply for reference so the eye, at a glance, can figure out how big or small. the exact measurement was probably taken the normal way and recorded.


Just a thought... I have taken many photos of different arrowheads with a striped poll or ruler that are only in the picture for a reference.

So its not so far fetched... Just a thought, nothing more.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Thank you so much for this. I'm really into the theories surrounding JFK and Bobby Kennedy's deaths.

In high school I made a friend exame the Lee Harvey Oswald rifle photos when she was going to school for photography. She determined they were definitely fake. Has fueled my fire ever since!



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Badge01
 


To respond to your interesting post about jfk's jacket. i offer this explanation. As an anthropologist student studying to get my Ph D in archeology, i find that taking pictures with rulers are common practice.

For the picture itself, the ruler does not have to be in perfect position to measure the object. It is simply for reference so the eye, at a glance, can figure out how big or small.


Yes, I am familiar with photos where a rule, or a coin is put in the picture to give a sense of scale when showing a small object, like an arrowhead. But this photo is different. They are clearly trying to measure the dimensions of the hole, they are not trying to show scale, since we know how big a person's back is. Note that there are two people holding the ruler, trying to anchor it.

Though it might be a stretch to say the rule is hiding something underneath, it's obvious that putting a ruler 1/2" to 1" away from a small hole is not the way to measure holes.


So its not so far fetched... Just a thought, nothing more.


I'm not the originator of this idea that the ruler is not placed properly for measuring a small bullet entrance wound. It might be David Lifton, not sure.

If nothing else, take it for an example of how a clue can hide in plain sight.

Did you try my 'experiment'? I doubt it, because most people put the ruler right up next to the hole.


[edit on 28-6-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Oswald was a lone gunman and skilled assassin. He was hired by the mafia. The mafia was hired by the elite bankers who would lose a lot of money (enough to kill for, we are talking trillions of dollars) if Kennedy's executive order shutting down the federal reserve was passed.


Don't believe me? Just go over the story now and look at the facts with what I said in mind.

The Characters:

John F Kennedy - President of the US.
Lee Harvey Oswald - A known assassin-for-hire.
Jack Ruby (Jack Rubenstein) - Known mafia member.

Timeline:

  1. Kennedy enacts executive order 11110, shutting down the federal reserve. Puts elite bankers (trillionaires) out of business.
  2. A few days later, Kennedy is shot and killed.
  3. Oswald is captured.
  4. Oswald gets killed by Jack Ruby before Oswald can testify in court to who hired him.
  5. Jack Ruby goes to prison for killing Oswald.
  6. Jack Ruby mysteriously dies in prison before HE can testify to who hired him.
  7. With no one to testify, no one will now know who hired them.
  8. Executive order 11110 is repealed, saving the rich elite bankers from losing their trillions.
  9. Is a losing a trillion+ dollars enough to make a man (or group of people) want to kill the president and prevent their losses?



I think it is.

It's obvious both Oswald and Rubenstein were hired by someone, else they wouldn't have been snuffed out before they could make their court appearances. It's just too much coincidence they BOTH die before going to court and being questioned in front of a jury.

So my verdict is this. Oswald was the lone gunman that shot Kennedy. There WAS no one on the grassy knoll or any other crazy theory. BUT, the official story of Oswald just being a lunatic is not true. He was hired. By the mafia. The mafia was hired by the elite bankers. The elite bankers did not want to hire Oswald directly. They don't have contacts in the criminal underworld and would have trouble finding an assassin good enough to kill the president. But the mafia do. So the rich bankers tasked the mafia with finding an assassin skilled enough to off the president of the united states. And they did just that.

They didn't anticipate that Oswald would be caught though. That's why they had to have Jack Ruby off him before he could testify. They also didn't think Jack Ruby would get caught for offing Oswald. That's why they had to have their men inside of the prison off Ruby before he himself could testify.

If the person that offed Ruby got caught as well, they would just off him too and keep along the process. But fortunately for them, they didn't get caught when they offed Ruby. So no more people were killed.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


Maybe it`s just me but, how do you put a price on a human life? How much is a life worth? That shows no regard for life at all.



[edit on 29-6-2008 by FiatLux]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrangeAlarmClock
Oswald was a lone gunman and skilled assassin. He was hired by the mafia. The mafia was hired by the elite bankers who would lose a lot of money (enough to kill for, we are talking trillions of dollars) if Kennedy's executive order shutting down the federal reserve was passed.


Don't believe me? Just go over the story now and look at the facts with what I said in mind.

The Characters:

John F Kennedy - President of the US.
Lee Harvey Oswald - A known assassin-for-hire.
Jack Ruby (Jack Rubenstein) - Known mafia member.


First, you believe it was a conspiracy. Good; I agree.

Second, if you are alleging that Oswald was a 'known assassin-for-hire', please give one cite or any evidence that he ever killed anyone, or anyone else (besides the flawed theory that he killed J.D.Tippet).

Surely a known assassin would have another known assassination.

However, you can posit a theory, but the mere fact that you allege it was a conspiracy is in contradiction to the official dogma, placing you in the conspirator's camp and not in the lone nut camp.

Who do you think covered it up?

Who do you think benefited the most? (which individual).

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FiatLux
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


Maybe it`s just me but, how do you put a price on a human life? How much is a life worth? That shows no regard for life at all.





Who me or the guys that did it? I'm not putting a price on JFK's life, but obviously they did. I'm sure faced with the loss of trillions of dollars and everything they have, they would have no qualms about having JFK assassinated - especially considering they are rich bankers who are already corrupted, greedy, and are not exactly saints.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

Second, if you are alleging that Oswald was a 'known assassin-for-hire', please give one cite or any evidence that he ever killed anyone, or anyone else (besides the flawed theory that he killed J.D.Tippet).

Surely a known assassin would have another known assassination.


en.wikipedia.org...
Right from the wikipedia page, it shows his *attempted* assassination on General Walker. As far as his other assassinations, well he wasn't caught for those, so of course there's no evidence. But he was well known in the Dallas Police community to be an assassin and they tried to catch him several times but couldn't link him to any crimes because he was that damn good.

And I don't think you will dispute that he was good. He killed the fricken President for chrissakes. That's not exactly easy.



Originally posted by Badge01
Who do you think covered it up?


The mafia did all the dirty work. The rich bankers just hired them. The mafia are the ones that originally hired Oswald to kill JFK. When Oswald was caught, the mafia hired Jack Ruby (who has known mafia ties) to take Oswald out before he could testify. When Ruby is sent to prison, the mafia then take him out. He was most likely poisoned while in prison. Not exactly hard for the mafia to do, they have guys on the inside.



Originally posted by Badge01
Who do you think benefited the most? (which individual).


Obviously the rich bankers, as they were saved when JFK was killed and his executive order was canceled. Else, they would have been out of literally trillions of dollars and not out of the money directly, but out of their source of income for the future.

The mafia also benefited, as no doubt they were payed a handsome sum by the bankers to pull the whole thing off. Don't forget - they also were being pressured by JFK's brother, Robert F Kennedy. By killing JFK, they sent a strong message to RFK not to mess with them. Of course he didn't listen, which was why he was later assassinated by them himself.

Oswald benefited, he was probably paid millions to kill the president. He benefited until he was caught and then assassinated by Jack Ruby a few days later. We would have learned this when he testified, if not for Jack Ruby.

Jack Ruby was also likely paid, or since he was in the mob, he might not have been paid, but ordered to kill Oswald. Which might explain why he went about it kind of half-assed and was caught.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Was there a hole in the windshield of the X-100 limo in which JFK was driven in Dallas on 11/22/63?

Murder in Dealey Plaza, pg 135:


The limousine had departed Parkland Hospital at approximately 2:04 p.m. on 22 November 1963 driven by SS Agent George W. Hickey, Jr. and a Dallas police officer.

It was placed aboard a cargo plane – an Air Force C-130 – and flown to Washington. The plane arrived at Andrews Air Force Base at 8:00 p.m. Special Agent Samuel Kinney, accompanied by Agent Charles Taylor, Jr., drove the vehicle under police escort to the White House Garage.

Mr. Taylor would have been in an ideal position to carefully observe any windshield damage. In the report of SS agents Charles Taylor, Jr. and Harry Geiglin, Mr. Taylor, who as present at the same tie as the FBI agents, specifically wrote upon observing the windshield that “of particular note was the small hole just left of center from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”


Furthermore SS Agent Roy Kellerman claimed that he examined the windshield on 27 November 1963, allegedly a short time before it was removed from the limousine.



Kellerman noted that he ran his hand over the outside of the windshield and found it to be smooth. Kellerman stated that the damage was on the inside surface of the windshield. In Kellerman’s mind, such an observation logically indicated a shot from the rear.


The problem is, the windshield was safety glass and such glass shows the opposite kind of damage that regular glass show. This means that if Kellerman’s testimony was correct, the shot was from the front.

In addition, Bill Ashby the crew leader of he Arlington Glass Company team claimed he removed the windshield on 27 November 1963 in the White House Garage. (pg 137)

However F. Vaughn Ferguson wrote in his memo of 18 November 1963 that personnel from Arlington Glass removed the windshield from the vehicle on 25 November 1963 and placed it in a stockroom under lock and key at the White House garage. If this is accurate (and Ferguson is unequivocal on the date), how is Kellerman’s testimony possible?


Secret Service Agent Kellerman changes his story

Further, when Kellerman testified before the Warren Commission in March 1964, the was asked to run his hand over the inside of the windshield. Incredibly he testified the exact opposite of his original statement. (presumably, he had learned about the nature of safety glass versus regular glass in the interim).

Also strange, Ferguson testified about something he had NOT seen. He said he saw no holes in the glass. If no perforation existed, why would he mention it? The suggestion is that he was coached. He also said that the cracks in the windshield were directly under the mirror, when it’s clear from Altgens and others that it was to the left of the mirror when viewed from inside the car.


Secret Service Agent Greer contradicts everyone:

In another inexplicable testimony, SS Agent Greer the driver of the limo continued to tell researchers and investigators and friends over the years that there had been no damage to the windshield.

There is a fair amount of testimony and witness statements, which verify that there was a hole in the windshield.

Richard Dudman, a reporter for The St. Louis Post Dispatch, wrote an article in which he said ‘a few of us noticed a holing the windshield when the limousine was standing in front of the emergency entrance…’

Former Dallas Police Office H.R. Freeman, who was in the motorcade, said, “I was right beside it. I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.”

DPD Officer Stavis Ellis, who was in charge of the motorcade remarked, “You could put a pencil through it (the hole)” He further described it as being on the driver’s side of the mirror.

Dr Evalea Glanges, reported she had gotten out of class and found herself standing near the limo and leaned against the fender and looked through the hole. “It was a real clean hole,” she said.

SS Agent Abraham Bolden also saw the hole.

The only conclusion to all of this is that there was definitely a shot from the front and following the trajectory back from the President leads us to the south side of the Triple Underpass, near the top of the Stemmons Freeway.

In addition it is quite clear the Secret Service agents involved in the plot were lying over and over again.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


good research badge.

unfortunately no one puts that much due diligent work into this. and i doubt we will never see the real conspirators outed .



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Thanks, but it's not my research, it belongs to James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., and Douglas Weldon. J.D., from the book Murder in Dealey Plaza, "Part II The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963".

Thanks for the chance to annotate the source more completely, though I think giving the book title and the page number is adequate for ATS, I should have given more for the sake of correct attribution.

Here's a link to the book at Amazon.

You can get information on how to a copy of Weldon's presentation at this website: (I'm not affiliated)

I'll put up more as I go through the book. One thing I want to document that I've seen intimated but not fully shown with images is that the Nix film shows something significantly different than the Zapruder film. It's a blockbuster as to proof of the alteration of the Zapruder film.

Oops, I noticed a slight error in the post of mine above. Here's the corrected words in bold:

Richard Dudman, a reporter for The St. Louis Post Dispatch, wrote an article in which he said ‘a few of us noticed a hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing in front of the emergency entrance…’



[edit on 30-6-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
OK, as promised here is further evidence that some of the films taken on November 23, 1963 were altered.

Here is the Nix film, showing the relative positions of Jackie and SSA Clint Hill.

In the Nix film:
Starting at about 16 seconds, you see Jackie's rear end and hips are completely past the axle of the rear tire of the limo.





Yet in the corresponding Z film, only her head and shoulders go back that far.


You also see Clint Hill wrap his LEFT arm around Jackie's right shoulder in the NIX film (view the Youtube clip to visualize better).



However if you look at the Zapruder film, you see that the closest that Clint Hill got to Jackie was at arm's length - the length of his fully outstretched RIGHT arm. (here in Z-397, the last frame before Jackie goes back fully into the car at abou Z-400-Z402)



Thus either the Z-film was altered or the Nix film was altered. Both were in possession of the FBI/SS according to some experts.

At any rate, they should match.

The Z-film seems to be the better candidate for alteration due to things like this:

Clint Hill's Impossibly long left arm:




Here's a nice Youtube vid that goes over some additional alteration proofs:




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
One thing that always troubled me about the Zapruder film is the section from about Z-270 through Z-331 where the camera seems to pan up, and the whole side of the limo is lost below the edge of the film.

Z-270


Z-331


Z-332


And by Z-333 you can now see the hubcaps of the car again. (2/18th of a second)


In addition, the green grass behind the limo seems a bit too large, vertically, when you compare it with current day images taken from the Zapruder pedestal. (I used the frames from the Costella Combined edit site www.assassinationresearch.com... and cropped the sides but not the top.)

Here's an overlay which demonstrates that. I don't recall who took this, but they took reasonable precautions to film it from the same angle.




The answer to this is now quite obvious. But it eluded me for several years.

It is not due to a panning error on the part of Mr Zapruder, though that is commonly what it is attributed to by some researchers.

I'll post tomorrow what the answer is. This will give other posters time to submit their guesses.


Hope people are enjoying my rather amateur attempts to shed some light on the various mysteries surrounding those days in 1963.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join