It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


JFK - Stabilized, filtered and in high definition

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 08:58 PM
After many years of believing the shot came from the storm drain on Elm, this video in HD shows William Greer shooting a pistol and killing JFK Americas Last President. If the video was doctored its tough to tell from this clip. Incredible.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by dntwastetime]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:05 PM
How can something be HD if it was filmed decades before HD was introduced to cameras?

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:06 PM
Uhhhhhh... WOW!. I mean, I've heard about the driver being a possible shooter, but I dunno.

This is very interesting, though who knows, it might be doctored. I'll have to look at the older videos and study. I would think that some one would have picked this out years ago and make a big fuss over it. Hmmmm...

[edit on 6/24/2009 by Slash]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:18 PM
This site challenges the theory. It also has a closer look at the driver than the video posted and puts up a good arguement against it. If a gun was fired from the driver, wouldn't someone from the crowd have noticed, or even the agent sitting next to him, as well as everyone else that was in the car? I'm not saying it couldn't have been possible because they all could have been in on it. It's a good theory, but I'm not to sure about this one.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:25 PM
There is no smoke from the gun when the shot is fired. I'm no gun expert but shouldn't there be some smoke ejected from the pistol?

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:41 PM
Should be smoke, should be recoil, etc, I'm sure the agent next to him wasn't pleased with it either probably blew his eardrums open.

Am I the only one that sees that it is obviously the head of the passenger? Before it happens the "gun" keeps appearing on and off his forehead and hair. If you think it is a handgun shot by the driver (why would the driver do it? why not the passenger?) with his left hand over, his right shoulder, etc I mean it's ridiculous and discredits any real conspiracy in the assassination.

[edit on 24/6/09 by Nventual]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:52 PM
looks like that shinny thing is just the breel cream that the secret service guy had on his head. they use to use that stuff back then.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:58 PM
Awesome footage. It is there in front of the world to see and unfortunately the killer could confess today and at this point no one would believe him.

This tragedy is one that will NEVER be solved for the same reason 911 will never be solved. The American people have put so much faith and trust in their Gubberment that The people who run it can get away with murder and no one questions a thing.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:21 PM
epic fail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

worst effort i have seen to date. since when did the glare from the sun become a gun ?

with theories like this who needs the truth huh ?

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

I don't buy it...I like the Brill Cream theory better...

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:25 PM
The video basically looks like all the other the driver shot him theories,i agree with the other posters that the driver was not holding a gun or shoot jfk.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Solomons]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:53 PM
The driver theory is bunk IMO. The shinny thing is the passengers head.

The grassy knoll or that storm drain and from that general area is much more plausable. There have been multiple witnesses that said that, as well as a man who says he saw a shooter from the behind the fence. If it had been the driver, then people would have said so, rather than grassy knoll.

If the driver was involved and slowed the car down for the shot I think is possible. As the video has been edited to not show the part where the car comes to almost a complete stop.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:53 PM
He used his left hand? Most people are right-handed. Of course, if he'd used his right hand, it wouldn't have been visible.
Also, that is a ridiculously awkward position to shoot from. He wouldn' have risked it, surely.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:01 AM
I did a RGB color analysis of the frames where the driver turns back here on ATS a while back, unless the passengers head is EXACTLY as shiny as the sunlight chrome on the car, then the film has been tampered with to disguise something. How long was the Zapruder film held before being released to the public? Long enough to have been doctored? Yup.

I studied this for a long time, and after really LOOKING into it, I'm pretty well convinced the driver turns back and shoots him. Jackie sees the driver's shot and her reaction is to jump the hell out of that car.
Skeptics will say the gun is the reflection of the passenger's head, and the arm is the curb, they will say that Jackie jumped out of the car because she wanted to simply retrieve a piece of her husband's skull that was blown off??... if you do a little digging, you find the passengers head is EXACTLY the same color and refelctivity of the sunlit polished chrome of the car, and unless you can see curb through solid objects, or believe that superhuman motion is possible, then we have a serious problem with some of these frames.
Here's a pretty indepth discussion of this subject...
Here's a pretty damning video of the Secret Service being ordered away from JFK's side...
and a couple others...

[edit on 25-6-2009 by twitchy]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:42 AM
If the person sitting next to me had their head blown apart I'd probably instantly try escape as well, regardless of where the shot came from, for the sheer horror of what would be next to me and of course the fact that I was being shot at. I don't see how that is proof that the driver shot JFK.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:51 AM
Looks to me as if the driver is actually driving with his left hand.

I have heard of people being blinded by someones shiny dome, but I don't think it can actually cause death.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by twitchy

The light that is reflected is not based on the color of what is reflecting it, but on the light that is being reflected.

The car is black, but you can easily see the reflections coming off as white on the black paint, as it is the sun that it is reflecting.

Illumination = light hits object and we can see it and the color.

Reflection = light hits objects, but is directed back towards the observer, rather than illuminating the object at that point. As is is reflected, it is the original light we see, rather than the color of the object.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by badmedia]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by twitchy

Don't you think if she saw the driver shoot her husband she would have told someone?

It would take a cold hearted woman to not see that the right story was told.

She wasn't the Hilliary type.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Nventual
How can something be HD if it was filmed decades before HD was introduced to cameras?

Film is HD. If you go to see a movie in the theater, most likely is film being projected on the wall. The movie will never look any better than that. DVDs, Blu-Rays, or even a vhs tapes are versions of the movie that have been compressed so that they take up much less space than the original film master. A digital version of a two-hour film would take up roughly a terabyte of space on a hard drive without some sort of compression. On larger media, less compression is necessary and more detail from the original film master is preserved.

Digital HD video cameras were introduced more recently - they do not use film. Older cameras would not record in HD because there was no cheap media available to the public to take advantage of it (large file size) and no one had TVs that could display that kind detail anyway.

If you use a camera that records to actual film, the picture is as good as it could possibly look - beyond high definition.

Don't you recall the race for digital cameras manufacturers to have higher megapixel count? Have you ever heard anyone use megapixels to refer to a traditional film camera? Nope, because film cameras produce pictures that are already as good as they can be.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by andrewh7]

[edit on 25-6-2009 by andrewh7]


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:40 AM
I see no muzzle flash or recoil. Just a shiny head of a passnger, the same as everyones head is shining there.

Thanks for posting it though, great to see it such god quality.


top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in