The Best Zapruder film stabalisation yet in HD.

FlyersFan

leostokes
JFK Chest Wound

Those 'bullet wounds' look like moles to me. And they don't look big enough to be bullet wounds.
Sorry.

Well you can not tell if they are bullet holes or moles by just looking. Digital computer photo analysis is required.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


That's interesting ... it doesn't match up to the pictures or the video of the event.
If you have a link to the testimony it would be helpful.
See if those people are who they say they are ... that kind of thing.
I'll google and see if I can find something ...

FlyersFan
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

 

the film shows the car slowing waaaay down.

edit on 11/17/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

That's one of the things that strikes me as strange. It seems like a trained secret service agent would recognize the sound of a gun shot (the one hitting JKF in the neck) and not slow down, but speed up. Only he does the opposite.

reply to post by leostokes

Okay .. digital photo analysis. I"m just saying that they look like medium sized moles to me.
I'm not seeing a bullet wound. That's all ....

JohnnySasaki
It seems like a trained secret service agent would recognize the sound of a gun shot (the one hitting JKF in the neck) and not slow down, but speed up. Only he does the opposite.

YEP .. strange.
The car didn't stop, but it slowed down. He reacted just the opposite as he was supposed to.
It wasn't until the bodyguard jumped on the back and threw Jackie down (as she was collecting
skull pieces) that the car sped up as it was supposed to.

Either his training failed him ... or he knew he should slow down for the shooter to do his job.
All things considered ... both are reasonable to consider.
Those are the only two things I can come up with to explain his action of slowing down.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'm not seeing a bullet wound. That's all ....

No, I am not seeing a bullet wound either. The point is that the human eye is not as sensitive as digital computer analysis.

Do you see the folds of skin in JFK's neck? They mask an exit wound. The people who authorized the photo are deliberately hiding this exit wound in the neck folds. Also they have pulled his scalp over the massive exit wound in the back of JFK's head. It looks like normal hair. But we know there is a baseball size hole under the scalp. Don't we?

Aleister
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

The HD version of the film is very interesting, thanks for posting. I noticed for the first time how all the people on the sidewalk to the right of the car just stand there the whole time, nobody waving, none of them greeting JFK and Jackie. Were people like robots back then, just watching and not participating in events?

They were probably hearing shots fired and were confused. I'm sure it was clear to see that something was going terribly wrong in the car.

FlyersFan
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

That's interesting ... it doesn't match up to the pictures or the video of the event.
If you have a link to the testimony it would be helpful.
See if those people are who they say they are ... that kind of thing.
I'll google and see if I can find something ...

This is some of the testimony I was talking about:

leostokes
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I'm not seeing a bullet wound. That's all ....

No, I am not seeing a bullet wound either. The point is that the human eye is not as sensitive as digital computer analysis.

Do you see the folds of skin in JFK's neck? They mask an exit wound. The people who authorized the photo are deliberately hiding this exit wound in the neck folds. Also they have pulled his scalp over the massive exit wound in the back of JFK's head. It looks like normal hair. But we know there is a baseball size hole under the scalp. Don't we?

You might think you know that, but I have yet to see any proof of that. In fact, everything points to the contrary. All I have seen in this thread is a bunch of photo's of people pointing to the back of their head (which could very easily be taken out of context without the video and audio along with it. Meaning they could be describing the entry wound just as much as the exit wound), and a drawing that could have been made by anyone.

That's not exactly what I call proof.

reply to post by JohnnySasaki


I'm not really claiming it's proof of anything. I just find it odd that there seems to be two versions of events/photos that don't seem to line up.

reply to post by FlyersFan


As the very close up snuff vids in this thread show www.abovetopsecret.com... Jackie was not trying to collect skull pieces (one of her favorite hobbies along with studying insect migration and collecting bottle caps) but was trying to get away from that thing that a few seconds ago was her husband but was now an empty head. She almost gets shot, the head explodes all over her, she does the O thing with her mouth, pushes the corpse away and bolts. The skull piece story was a nice way of saying she didn't panic.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I don't know how an exit wound was determined. In the film it looks like his head just completely split open and fell apart. Maybe it was just his scalp flapping back, but the autopsy photos always confused me. From what I can see in the film, I just don't know how there would have been much left.

headshot came from the driver.

/endofdiscussion.

reply to post by Aleister


When I say she was trying to get the skull pieces, I'm saying that because that' s what the body guard said she was doing. I have no idea if that's actually what she was doing or not.

joshuaislord
headshot came from the driver.

No it didn't.

/endofdiscussion.

Not even close.

DeadSeraph

FlyersFan
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

That's interesting ... it doesn't match up to the pictures or the video of the event.
If you have a link to the testimony it would be helpful.
See if those people are who they say they are ... that kind of thing.
I'll google and see if I can find something ...

This is some of the testimony I was talking about:

edit on 17-11-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

I believe that interview was in 1994 (could be wrong). Over 30 years after the shooting. Stories can change a lot during 30 years. What's more, I believe he has officially changed his story multiple times. Is it not inconceivable that the hole he is referring to, was the entry wound (as we have clear evidence of the entry wound on the back of his head) and not the exit wound? Or maybe he is remembering what he saw AFTER the autopsy had already started, which probably involved some sort of cutting into JFK's skull?

I'm just throwing out idea's here. All of which are a lot more likely than them faking a bunch of video and photographs, which would have been extremely hard back then, when all they would have had to do is just have someone actually shoot him from behind, like the video shows. Why would they have gone to all that trouble just to shoot him from the front? It would have been a 100000 times easier and less risky to just have the shooter in the book depository like they concluded, whether it was Oswald or not.

Like I have stated many times, the shot was EASY for a trained shooter. No reason for multiple shooters unless you're dealing with a bunch of men who are incompetent, which doesn't exactly sound like a good description of someone who successfully pulled off an assassination of the president of the United States and following cover-up.

FlyersFan
reply to post by Aleister

 

When I say she was trying to get the skull pieces, I'm saying that because that' s what the body guard said she was doing. I have no idea if that's actually what she was doing or not.

I know, that's the bodyguard story which has become accepted fact. But when you watch the slo-mo close action gif's on the link she's bolting. The bodyguard didn't see her in those seconds, and he may have seen a piece of skull rolling around, saw her hands, and thought she was going for the skull.

There is a very close up of the head wound and Jackie's reaction at my thread I linked above, on the second page. Tried to bring it here but the picture had been removed already.

JFK is 'shot' through the throat. Jackie who should have immediately tended
to him is looking towards where Connolly is sitting.


Jackie is still looking towards Connolly when she should be attending her husband.


Now she begins to 'attend' to JFK.


She continues to 'attend' to her husband.


Almost direct on front of Zapruder who is filming the business, the 'explosion' occurs.

It is clear to me that Jackie is central to events. I believe she activated some type
device which can be seen to explode and roll up JFK's head.
It is not a bullet entry wound that we are seeing, but a special effects 'bladder'
device exploding. A part accidentally recoils back onto the trunk, evidence which
Jackie quickly retrieves.

We are watching a movie, with actors acting out their parts.
Watch the 'movie' again and see the truth.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


Weird theory, to say the least. Jackie was "attending" to her husband within seconds, the first moment or two of such an experience is one in which you don't act rationally, she's frozen in place for a very brief time. She had just been taken in her psyche from riding in a car to seeing and hearing things she's never seen or heard before, and then starts to react.

OneFreeMan


Please keep your eyes on Jackie Kennedy.
What, you may ask, is she waiting for?

Please watch in full screen.

and what does she slip inside her coat immediately after the 'hit' ?