New video of complete JFK assasination 15 min long!

reply to post by intrptr


I'm not claiming the production to be mine. Therefore, the credibility part doesn't fit anywhere .And stop quoting me selectively to prove yourself. You have no idea what is or what isn't because nobody has definite evidence on what happened that day, neither do I.

Lets keep it healthy.

reply to post by junior2991

I'm not claiming the production to be mine.

But you do keep defending it. Even after I pointed out two places (there are more) that the "completeness" was lacking.

Therefore, the credibility part doesn't fit anywhere

It should now.

And stop quoting me selectively to prove yourself.

I proved the video is not "complete". And showed your insistence that it is. Thats all.

You have no idea what is or what isn't because nobody has definite evidence on what happened that day

The video evidence is about the only real "definite" evidence. I have studied it. I know that the video is "incomplete" and I will keep saying that as long as you deny it. Thats the point of "denying ignorance" here. This website exposes the lies and omissions about historic events.

The coverup about the JFK assassination is 50 years deep. Incomplete or erroneous evidence litters that timeline. Any "new" evidence or persons who bring such false information will be exposed too. Isn't that what you want, to expose the truth?

Lets keep it healthy.

reply to post by ThinkingCap

Every new generation is revisited with a new film about the events surrounding the Assassination. You know they are indoctrinating people because they make reenactment films with big stars and budgets instead of spending all that money actually reviewing the real evidence. After seeing the film people will say, I heard (from the film) that the evidence said so and so, and that will become the new story. They did it with (Oliver Stone's) JFK too.

People won't usually study the real history, but they will go to the movies and adopt that reenactment as reality.

Older people who were alive or studied it through the years die off and thats how history is steadily rewritten.

Originally posted by LeslieD
reply to post by johncarter

 

50 year anniversary of his death coming up.

And the voice in the first part of the film is Walter Cronkite of CBS News. This would have to be CBS footage.

Its a mix of many different sources tagged together. Some of the announcer audio is made up in retrospect fashion.

Walters voice was added to give it an "authoritarian" ring.

His by line was always, "And thats the way it is".

reply to post by zatara

Was it not 50 years that the files on the assassination were kept secret and will now be released?

There are no "files". You mean where some General, Senator and oil exec signed the "hit order"? That kind of file doesn't exist. No matter how deep they bury it would still be a "paper trail". The reason they seal files for "50 years" is a distraction. Its like saying we aren't going to talk about this any more for 50 years. By then of course, the perps and any witnesses will be mostly dead and gone. Also, people who are told "wait fifty years" go away and stop asking questions.

The official story will always remain just like it is today. A lie. Whatever they do release will be new versions of the same old crap. Like Hollywood movies. Remake after remake.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Cant be complete, where's the footage of the secret service stepping away from the car?

.. I saw this the other night and saw the same comment posted..

sus!

Yah, this didn't make it in there either. Amazingly missing most important detail...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by zatara

 

Was it not 50 years that the files on the assassination were kept secret and will now be released?

There are no "files". You mean where some General, Senator and oil exec signed the "hit order"? That kind of file doesn't exist. No matter how deep they bury it would still be a "paper trail". The reason they seal files for "50 years" is a distraction. Its like saying we aren't going to talk about this any more for 50 years. By then of course, the perps and any witnesses will be mostly dead and gone. Also, people who are told "wait fifty years" go away and stop asking questions.

The official story will always remain just like it is today. A lie. Whatever they do release will be new versions of the same old crap. Like Hollywood movies. Remake after remake.

You posted some interesting comments there, particularly the last paragraph. In a previous post on this thread you talked about denying ignorance. From your comments above that means you must have substantial clear cut evidence that the 'official story' is a lie, otherwise it's your comment that plays it a little loose with the truth, or is based on ignorance - you can't have it both ways can you?

Looking forward to seeing that evidence and please not from a site that is clearly biased and selective with the 'facts' it presents.

reply to post by IAMTAT


You may not be far off on that one.According to sources George Bush Sr. Claimed not to know where he was during the JFK assassination.Now having been around at that time,let me tell you.If you ask anyone from that era where they were when they heard Kennedy died,they can tell you.We all still remember it quite vividly.So why does Bush not remember?And why are there photos of him shortly after Kennedy is rushed to the hospital at Dealy plaza?And why was he allowed any access to the warren commission?All very strange.And how all those people that were witness' suddenly died unnatural deaths.

reply to post by intrptr


You are all over the place. And cant engage in a discussion trying to be rational with an irrational person. Need to pay more attention to what you read before posting.

Please go ahead and submit a "complete" compilation since you have studied this event so much. PLEASE.

Again, I don't own the video neither helped on its development or have any ties with the person/team who created it. So stop trying to be Sherlock Holmes brother. Trying to Infer things you have no idea about, keep up the curiosity, but cool off.

At least the cuts in the Zapruder film are quite obvious.

2nd.

reply to post by junior2991

Still very powerful, almost difficult to watch. This man was a most beloved president. I wonder if things would have been different, if he had lived. I was 6 years old went this happened. I remember this was one of the few times I ever saw my dad break down and cry; however, he did so for Martin Luther Kings assassination too. Huge people in my father's eyes. So very sad, even to this day.

No new footage just lots of clips assembled & its odd that when the shot was to happen the sound feed went all squally n #! more of the same (I'm sorry!)

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by junior2991

 

I still can't get over the fact that Jackie retreated towards the back of the car. Not exactly what you would expect in this kind a situation. Instinctive reaction would be to back away from the direction the shot was fired. Looks pretty clear she knew from where the shots came, and instinctively, backed away, even though it could have caused her more injury. If someone fires in your general direction, you are sure not to start running towards them.

I realize that it's not always easy to determine the direction just by sound (if you don't see the shooter)...but that was an open space...and she was so close to him...she could have felt the force of the impact and her brain instinctively determined the direction.

Than again...it could be just uncontrollable fear...It's not even fun to speculate anymore.

No, Jackie was instinctively (if that's the word for it) climbing onto the back of the limosine to retrieve a portion of Jack's skull.

I wondered about that myself for years until I read the explanation somewhere.

She was trying to put him back together.

Her bodyguard was the one who, reacting very quickly, climbed onto the back of the limo and threw himself over her.

Sure looks like GWH Bush:

Here's Walter Cronkite announcing the death of Kennedy. It's been 50 years and this still sends a chill through my spine:



and two hours full coverage of the day from CBS news:

it amazes me how she picks up that bit of skull off the back like she knew the skull would land there, how did she know this, did she see something like which direction a bullet was coming from.

reply to post by signalfire

No, Jackie was instinctively (if that's the word for it) climbing onto the back of the limosine to retrieve a portion of Jack's skull.

No disrespect to you, as I realize that was the OS, but I don't believe that is what she was doing at all. The film was highly edited and I don't think that Jackie O. was retrieving anything (the piece of brain matter is lame*), but more likely (IMO) she was passing something off to the SS

*Trying to grab a piece of skull and/or bone (or brain matter), with the idea of putting him back together, or for any reason actually, would entail critical and logical thinking/planning skills.. which in this event a person would not have had the time to think in such a rational (however irrational) manner. Not even the shock of such a trauma would have had time to set in yet,

In any event, I feel (after watching the film several hundred times) that whatever was being passed and/or retrieved (which I do doubt any retrieval) had been edited and we will never be told the truth.

Even if we were told the truth at this point, who would believe it?
So many lies have been told. So much speculation.
It's all very interesting though, and I found the phone calls between Jackie and Lyndon B. Johnson (after he became president, very intriguing).

All just personal speculation on my part..

reply to post by junior2991

I followed the conversation between you both and must say, at the point where it was said that the video is indeed not complete nor new, you fled to the excuse "but it is a new video, show me this exact video before june 20xx". Could it be that you´ve no real idea about the several existing videos that were just clipped together in your new video? Your intention was to bring a new thread with interesting new evidence but when you were showed you failed because you had no idea what you just posted you got defensive and wound up in a word battle you were prone to loose.

So stop bitching both.

Originally posted by signalfire
Sure looks like GWH Bush:

edit on 30-6-2013 by signalfire because: getting the link right.

I like how Bush claimed it was a different George Bush in Dallas that day, not him. Kills me every time I hear it.

Originally posted by RobinB022
reply to post by signalfire

 

No, Jackie was instinctively (if that's the word for it) climbing onto the back of the limosine to retrieve a portion of Jack's skull.

No disrespect to you, as I realize that was the OS, but I don't believe that is what she was doing at all. The film was highly edited and I don't think that Jackie O. was retrieving anything (the piece of brain matter is lame*), but more likely (IMO) she was passing something off to the SS

*Trying to grab a piece of skull and/or bone (or brain matter), with the idea of putting him back together, or for any reason actually, would entail critical and logical thinking/planning skills.. which in this event a person would not have had the time to think in such a rational (however irrational) manner. Not even the shock of such a trauma would have had time to set in yet,

In any event, I feel (after watching the film several hundred times) that whatever was being passed and/or retrieved (which I do doubt any retrieval) had been edited and we will never be told the truth.

Even if we were told the truth at this point, who would believe it?
So many lies have been told. So much speculation.
It's all very interesting though, and I found the phone calls between Jackie and Lyndon B. Johnson (after he became president, very intriguing).

All just personal speculation on my part..

For years I thought this was why she climbed to the back of the car before the agent pushed her back in. Retrieving a skull piece was an act of love but I have been doubting this lately, too.

Why would she scramble to get out of the car if shots were heard all over the place (or suppposedly coming from the rear) ?? But it would make sense she would try to get out of the car if the driver turned around and shot Kennedy. Who wants to be in the same car as the shooter? Not saying this is what happened but it makes me think it's possible. William Cooper (Author of Behold a Pale Horse and former Naval Intelligence member with top secret clearance) had been saying this for years before his murder.