New video of JFK's shooter? (Grassy Knoll footage)

page: 4
49
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I think the shooter in the picture looks more like Malcolm Wallace than David Ferrie. Which would tie in to Johnson.




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 



And in this one you can clearly see he JFK is in distress before he is shot


Umm.. It's common knowledge he was hit by a shot from behind and in the upper back before he was struck with the fatal shot we can see in frame 313 of the Z-film. One which clearly was not done by the driver as seen in the film, and in the above image I added. Haven't you ever heard of the Single Bullet Theory?

Why have you avoided my questions anyway? I'll assume for the time being you can't answer them.


 



YOU ARE FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE, ALL DIGITAL MEDIA CAN BE MANIPULATED.


Sigh. The only piece of evidence you yourself are using is the Z-film - this is the very thing I've used to debunk your theory. You can't claim, simply because I have a belief that differs to yours, that I'm possibly wrong because it can be manipulated, and then use the same video to back up your own ideas. That's ridiculous.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by standrkm
 




The video looks like a joke, but is that possibly a man with a rifle in the knoll?


The film itself is not a joke. And there's not really any dispute over whether it's actually real or not. The debate lies on whether the figure we can see is real or not, and IMO, no it isn't.

As I stated in this post, I believe the "figure" is being caused by nothing but Pareidolia - thus is not there in the first place. Here's a thread I once did explaining what this is exactly as well so as to not repeat myself again and again here...
edit on 14-7-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
Why have you avoided my questions anyway? I'll assume for the time being you can't answer them.


 



YOU ARE FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE, ALL DIGITAL MEDIA CAN BE MANIPULATED.


Sigh. The only piece of evidence you yourself are using is the Z-film - this is the very thing I've used to debunk your theory. You can't claim, simply because I have a belief that differs to yours, that I'm possibly wrong because it can be manipulated, and then use the same video to back up your own ideas. That's ridiculous.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)


If your questions are about the initial quality of the video? I agree, but you cant rule out the possibility that they have been manipulated when enhanced. Don't rule it out completely, that Greer had a hand in it.

What other questions are you referring to? I see none I'm sorry.

It's not a coincidence that The Warren Commission was mainly made up of members of the Council for Foreign Relations. It was a farce.
edit on 14-7-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-7-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


The thing is, there's very little doubt in my mind that the Z- film we see today, was not the exact same film taken by Abraham Zapruder and subsequently sold to LIFE. This being so, I just find it incredibly frustrating to see others say to other people that they're possibly wrong due to the film being manipulated, then they themselves use none other than footage from the Z- film to back up their own claim.

That's why my response may seem a little bit "tempered".. I'm frustrated by this. I also see this theory as something that holds us researchers back as well.

Let me also make it clear that when I say the film was manipulated.. I don't believe the driver was "edited" to take out a gun or anything like that. I believe the film was purposefully changed to avoid us seeing the car slow down like most of the witnesses claimed it did, and other very minor touches also.



What other questions are you referring to?


These were the original questions I threw out there for all those who believe in this theory to kindly answer..



care to explain why not a single witness, and they were all over the place, suspected a shot from inside the car? Care to explain why he stuck around after the assassination not knowing whether he "got away with it", this assuming he did it. Care to explain why on earth he would be selected for such a thing? And so on..


Edit:



It's not a coincidence that The Warren Commission was mainly made up of members of the Council for Foreign Relations. It was a farce.


I know. I don't believe anyone ever hinted it wasn't a "farce".
edit on 14-7-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/10/11 by masqua because: Edit by author request



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The witnesses who came forward claiming it were murdered, you know this.

He stuck around because he did not need to 'get away'. I have explained this already. The cover-up was already in place, to happen, if you see the guy riding shotgun he seems as cool as a cucumber.

Why wouldn't he be selected? Whats to say he isn't like a manchurian candidate or something? The US Government is capable of anything. I dont even feel comfortable relaying the info I have been given. I don't even know all the facts, I'm hoping little snippets can maybe fill in a piece here or there. And if not, just disregard it.
edit on 14-7-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 




The witnesses who came forward claiming it were murdered, you know this.


No I don't. As far as I know, not a single witness was murdered for having or showing any knowledge of Greer being a shooter. Here's a thread I once did listing, and going into detail, on around 120+ murdered witnesses (so trust me, I'd know)... And not a single one claimed to have seen Greer turn around and fire a gun.

Also, why don't you name them.. you've had quite a few opportunities so far?



He stuck around because he did not need to 'get away'.


Sorry but that's just silly. You're trying to tell me and everyone else that he fired a gun at the president in front of well over 100+ witnesses, in broad daylight and in a position where all those witnesses would be looking in his general direction.. and you're practically telling us he just knew he would get away with it and he "didn't need" to get away? No, that's a ridiculous answer.

Again I find myself asking: If he fired a gun, why did he stick around, especially at this time not knowing if he got away with it? And please don't give the weak answer of "He just knew" like last time.

And "the guy riding with him" as you say is called Roy Kellerman and he was anything but "as cool as a cucumber".



Why wouldn't he be selected? Whats to say he isn't like a manchurian candidate or something? The US Government is capable of anything.


You're not going to convince anyone of your point when you base your argument on a "maybe" or a "what if" or even "well they could do it".

If you want us to believe he did it.. tell us how he managed it and tell how why he would be selected. Also feel free to tell us, once again, how no one noticed.. especially those in the car.

I get the feeling you're desperately trying to avoid answering the very simple questions posed to you from your responses thus far.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Actually, I am in complete agreeance with you.

I don't have all the facts, as stated, and only hope that something I say may fill in a piece, and if not disregard it, please.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
the more i watch the zapruder film from goggle that i posted earlier, the more i'm convinced that the fatal shot came from rear. like i said i'm no expert, but i have done a lot of shooting. from hunting as a kid , three years in the marine crops, and the past twenty seven years of just plain target shooting and hunting.

and have seen what a round does when it enters and exits, it's plain to see it came from the rear. when a round enters something the entry point is not much bigger than the round its self, and it push material in.when it exits the wound is much lager and it pushes marerial out. and if observed while happening, the exit can and does appear to explode outward.

now if you watch the zapruder film here from goggle vids, from frame 313 to at least 228 it plain to see it blow out, and a piece of his skull left hanging.

here's the link and a screen shot.

video
video.google.com...

screen shot




screen frame 228 and if you look at the red arrow, you can see the piece of skull and the top part of his head is gone, it's the dark spot just under her right eye, looks as if it was scooped away.

for the longest time i have always believed that the fatal shot came from the right front but now i think it came from the rear.

edit on 14-7-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
let's remember there was more than one shooter



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Here's a screen capture from the video provided by the Op. It was enhanced and clearly shows this:



The JFK assaination is what initially sent me down this long and unending conspiracy theory rabbit hole. I lost interest in it a while back and never dug deep enough to have seen or heard of this footage. Outstanding!


You are actually , Albeit innocently, misleading everybody with this post .
You should have also posted the unenhanced frame , for comparison .



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The Driver Greer did make some bigtime errors. Like slowing the car down after the throat shot, leaving JFK in the Killzone for the fatal shot THEN speeding off.

Also the stand down of putting SS agents on the rear platforms which if they were there would have blocked any shot coming from Oswalds Snipers nest.

But to say Greer fired the fatal shot


Look, what you think is a gun is the passengers silver hair. What you see as a hand holding this "gun" it is the passengers skin colored forehead. Not to mention Greer would have had to make this shot with his left hand which can clearly be seen down by his lap. So as far as the Limo Driver did it, please enough already. Was he involved? Possibly, probably imo. But come'on everyone in that car would have had ears ringing for 5-10 minutes and the smell of gunpowder all over them.Where's the smoke, where's the muzzle flash? It's not there, because Greer had no gun and never fireda shot. If he did, this would have been easily seen/heard by those inside the Limo, and those on the street closeby. It's really the most ludicrous theory that just won't die.

As far as the OP. I dunno how they got such a crisp image from a blurry image. Can we do the same thing with the supposed "Badgeman" pictures? If so it may help put that to rest. If not...Why not?

In my opinion, this was a well orchestrated hit on JFK, done by LBJ with the help of some SS agents, and the Mafia provided some of the wetwork. Oswald, and what I believe to be at least one other shooter ahead of the limo to the right. Whether in the storm drain, the Grassy Knoll, or the overpass. But unfortunately the Warren Commissions Investigation was about as thorough as Official Investigation into 9/11.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
If you watch the part where it shows the image enhancement.

You can see that it switches to another picture right before the sharpening begins it totally obvious to me...



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
As OldCorp mentions, the head-shot does seem -in my opinion, to come from
the rear, I'm not an expert but if a force comes from one direction it seems that
the effect of that force would continue as JFK's blood and gore show.

The 'back-and-to-the-left' action throws a spanner in the works as again, it seems
a force from the front and right makes the President's head continue the effect 'back
-and-to-the-left'

Can anyone who uses a rifle add or solve this puzzle?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
What a camper! If this was Call of Duty: Black Ops, that would have been a great camping spot in the map!


he was using aimbot as well too.
1 shot, 1 kill with an assist.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by A boy in a dress
 



As OldCorp mentions, the head-shot does seem -in my opinion, to come from
the rear


I'm a strong believer that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll (although I don't for a second believe we can see the shooter in the Nix film), but when looking at frames 312 and 313 of the Zapruder film, the head, admittedly, does make a forward movement as shown in this GIF below. There's no denying it:



My favorite theory going around is that JFK was being struck with 2 bullets at roughly the same time. One from behind (Possibly the TSDB or maybe even the Dal-Tex building) and one from the front right (The Knoll). This explains why we can see a forward movement and then a sharp movement back and to the left - JFK is simply reacting to both shots striking him. This is also an explanation to the very important anomaly heard by many of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, the anomaly being there was 2 shots (or "noises") in quick succession at around the same time we can see the "explosion" of Kennedy's head.

The reason this was dismissed so thoroughly though, especially by the Warren Commission, was because the possibility of 2 shots in quick succession alone debunks the SGT which has proven so important and one of the most talked about points to come out of the entire case. After all, 2 shots in quick succession can't have come from Oswald's rifle so it means there was at least 2 separate rifles and 2 separate gunmen.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


I seriously doubt the 'fuzzy' images that are supposed to show 'Badgeman
and 'ConstructionMan' -although I would be delighted if they were true.
(Is that sane?!)

The 'Gordon Arnold' incident is surprising as the account indicates that
he was the only one who seemed to be aware that a shot was taken from
the Knoll area... There's three people on the steps near the fence who don't
show any reaction, was a silencer used?

I think the Orville Nix movie is another facet of this tragedy that leaves us
licking our lips and banging the desk in frustration.

Great thread!



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well it Could James Files



James Files
en.wikipedia.org...

Could be one of Nicolette Assistance

Charles Nicoletti
en.wikipedia.org...



Was there 4 Assassins

1) shot through the Throat of JFK
2) Shot Hit the Windshield
3) Hit the Curb
4) Fatal Shot Hit by James Files

The Assassins

1) dressed in a Police Uniform with a Rifle /Tippet ?
2) One had a Jacket inside Out ( Plaid) Files
3) One known for the Shade Nicolette
222 Cal. Firebal lXP-100
www.jfkmurdersolved.com...

Even The Recorded Audio of the Police Bike Radio Near the President Kennedy's Car had 4 Different Sound signatures marks

If you want to know more about James Files go to the site Below

JFK Murder Solved
www.jfkmurdersolved.com...

Well a Person an Official FBI Zack Shelton Believed So


Is James Files telling the truth?
www.jfkmurdersolved.com...

Files on Kennedy



The guy that saw Jame Files ?

JFK - The Death of Eyewitness Lee Bowers
edit on 14-7-2011 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Wow,some very interesting information on this subject.
I already have researched this subject quite alot,i knot quite alot about it too,
but i will be looking into this subject even further now that ive seen this information.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maskirovka
The digitally enhanced image of the shooter is of, as someone has pointed out already, a suspiciously fine quality. I find it hard to accept that such fuzzy, grainy original footage could be refined into such a clear picture. I don't buy this.

It's totally possible bro:


edit on 14-7-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
49
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join