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.

 

The Best Zapruder film stabalisation yet in HD.

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

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?


Also ask yourself why are there so few people around? This should have
been the most populated spot along the whole of the route!




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Here are more autopsy photo's. As you can see, the exit wound is not actually in the front, but more or less on top. It entered in the back, and beings his . was pointing slightly downwards, it blew out the top of his skull.







Also, the entry wound, which I have never seen before, of the neck shot. I retract my previous statement where I said it was possible the neck shot came from the front. This is a clear entry wound.



And this is a clear exit wound.




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


The neck wound on your autopsy photo is after it had been used in Dallas to enlarge the airway, but yes, the back wound is an entry wound.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

RoScoLaz

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' ?


The activation chord to the device that produced forth the exploding bladder.
A part must have recoiled back unto the trunk, which she intuitively scrambled
to retrieve. It is said she went back for a piece of JFK's skull and brains and then
returned to her seat. Believe that, if you like.

Can anyone explain this?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

OneFreeMan
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 ..

You don't understand basic human psychology at all, and that 'theory' (if you can call it that)
goes against all the forensic evidence.

She was surprised by the event. She leaned forward. She was looking at the other person for help.
Jackie didn't 'off' JFK. LBJ probably set it all up ... but not a chance it was Jackie.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I've always found it curious why the car slowed to a near stop prior to the shots being fired?

It was purely anticipatory IMO.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SocialCUT
 


I noticed the same thing with the by standers. The man with his arm up waving to the right side of the sign does not move at all. He's waving before the car gets close to him and when the car passes he still doesn't move. The same thing with two people across the street.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


The neck wound on your autopsy photo is after it had been used in Dallas to enlarge the airway, but yes, the back wound is an entry wound.


Yeah, I was wondering why it was that shape.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

FlyersFan

OneFreeMan
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 ..

You don't understand basic human psychology at all, and that 'theory' (if you can call it that)
goes against all the forensic evidence.

She was surprised by the event. She leaned forward. She was looking at the other person for help.
Jackie didn't 'off' JFK. LBJ probably set it all up ... but not a chance it was Jackie.



No surprise. She is awaiting a cue to act.
And right on cue she 'acts'.

Consider this possibility as you rewatch the movie.
It is clear as day. They are all acting.

Can you explain the lack of bloodstains on the back of her dress, even though
she was sitting on a blood-stained seat with the blood contents of her
husband pouring out the back of his . unto her lap?

This should be good.
edit on 17-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: added question.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

OneFreeMan

FlyersFan

OneFreeMan
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 ..

You don't understand basic human psychology at all, and that 'theory' (if you can call it that)
goes against all the forensic evidence.

She was surprised by the event. She leaned forward. She was looking at the other person for help.
Jackie didn't 'off' JFK. LBJ probably set it all up ... but not a chance it was Jackie.



No surprise. She is awaiting a cue to act.
And right on cue she 'acts'.

Consider this possibility as you rewatch the movie.
It is clear as day. They are all acting.

Can you explain the lack of bloodstains on the back of her dress, even though
she was sitting on a blood-stained seat with the blood contents of her
husband pouring out the back of his . unto her lap?

This should be good.
edit on 17-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: added question.


The picture you posted is not only in black and white, it's also of her left side. JFK was sitting on her right. There aren't many pictures of her after, while still in the same dress, but apparently she had a fair amount of blood on her, as well as chunks of brain matter.

Also, she was even wearing a pink dress. Obviously it will still show blood, but in black and white it might not be as noticeable.

You're kind of grasping at straws at this point, aren't you? If that's all you got, we could call this case closed right now, lol.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

JohnnySasaki

TheGreazel
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Oke thanks for the info , i Know about exit wounds , but i dunno ... i personally feel that if oswald himself was too lucky to make these shots all by himself.

TheGreazel


Like I've stated in a previous thread, the shot's were not hard. Hell, the limo even slows down for the . shot. The only thing difficult would be the sticky bolt of the cheap gun he used, but he was also trained in the Marines, and I'm sure he practiced with the gun. The distance was only about 85 yards. I actually find it odd that he didn't hit him in the . on the first shot. Nerves I guess?


FlyersFan
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Excellent post. Thank you for providing excellent information - straight from 'sniper training'.

I thought everyone knew that the entry wound was small and the exit wound was the 'big splatter'.
(which is clearly visible in the video). But apparently some folks don't know that.
Well .... they do now.

Again .. you provided excellent information.


No problemo. I appreciate the appreciation.

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


Regarding your thoughts on the 1st shot. Being the limo was driving away from the snipers lair from above, the aim point would have to been held high to remain on target. I'm no expert, but think of it like leading a shot while duck hunting.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

JohnnySasaki
Also, she was even wearing a pink dress. Obviously it will still show blood, but in black and white it might not be as noticeable.


NY Times - Kennedy's Smart Pink Suit Preserved in National Archives
The blood has turned to powder. The stockings are full of powdered blood.

Swearing in picture
Jackie had the bloodstained clothing on during the swearing in. Everyone on the plane saw it, including the photographer. SHe 'turned slightly' for the picture so that the bloodstains on her skirt wouldn't show to the camera. The stains were on the side that her husband had been sitting on.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Mikeultra

JohnnySasaki

TheGreazel
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Oke thanks for the info , i Know about exit wounds , but i dunno ... i personally feel that if oswald himself was too lucky to make these shots all by himself.

TheGreazel


Like I've stated in a previous thread, the shot's were not hard. Hell, the limo even slows down for the . shot. The only thing difficult would be the sticky bolt of the cheap gun he used, but he was also trained in the Marines, and I'm sure he practiced with the gun. The distance was only about 85 yards. I actually find it odd that he didn't hit him in the . on the first shot. Nerves I guess?


FlyersFan
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Excellent post. Thank you for providing excellent information - straight from 'sniper training'.

I thought everyone knew that the entry wound was small and the exit wound was the 'big splatter'.
(which is clearly visible in the video). But apparently some folks don't know that.
Well .... they do now.

Again .. you provided excellent information.


No problemo. I appreciate the appreciation.

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


Regarding your thoughts on the 1st shot. Being the limo was driving away from the snipers lair from above, the aim point would have to been held high to remain on target. I'm no expert, but think of it like leading a shot while duck hunting.


I know all about shooting, dude. I will gladly post some of my groups, but as I've already done that in a previous thread, I'll refrain so as to not look like an a**hole, lol. Let's just say I know what I'm doing.


Bullets travel quite fast, and while not instant, at the 85 yards it had to travel, and the fact that the limo actually slowed down at the time of the shot, the shooter would not have had to compensate more than a few inches (maybe 2 or 3 max). All he would have had to do was aim at the top of Kennedy's ., and it would have been a bullseye. Windage is a non issue at that range.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

OneFreeMan
...

Can you explain the lack of bloodstains on the back of her dress, even though
she was sitting on a blood-stained seat with the blood contents of her
husband pouring out the back of his . unto her lap?

...


Even if this were the case (and personally I think you are incorrect) what would it actually tell you? Are you suggesting that she was not actually in the car? Are you suggesting that the blood on the seat was added after the event?

If you are suggesting that she was not there, this seems quite a bold and contradictory assertion.

If you are suggesting that the blood on the seat was a "later addition", this doesn't really say anything one way or the other about events. At some point, they would have stopped the car and helped her get out. Without her in the seat, the body may well have slid over and down, leading to more blood being deposited on the seat than when she was sitting there. Indeed, Occam's Razor would suggest that this is far more likely than any conspiratorial theory.

If there is another reason why you think the absence of blood is relevant, I would be interested to hear it.


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



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

JohnnySasaki

OneFreeMan

FlyersFan

OneFreeMan
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 ..

You don't understand basic human psychology at all, and that 'theory' (if you can call it that)
goes against all the forensic evidence.

She was surprised by the event. She leaned forward. She was looking at the other person for help.
Jackie didn't 'off' JFK. LBJ probably set it all up ... but not a chance it was Jackie.



No surprise. She is awaiting a cue to act.
And right on cue she 'acts'.

Consider this possibility as you rewatch the movie.
It is clear as day. They are all acting.

Can you explain the lack of bloodstains on the back of her dress, even though
she was sitting on a blood-stained seat with the blood contents of her
husband pouring out the back of his . unto her lap?

This should be good.
edit on 17-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: added question.


The picture you posted is not only in black and white, it's also of her left side. JFK was sitting on her right. There aren't many pictures of her after, while still in the same dress, but apparently she had a fair amount of blood on her, as well as chunks of brain matter.

Also, she was even wearing a pink dress. Obviously it will still show blood, but in black and white it might not be as noticeable.

You're kind of grasping at straws at this point, aren't you? If that's all you got, we could call this case closed right now, lol.


You are kidding, right? Are we even looking at the same picture?
That dress should have been darkly blood-stained all over the front and back.
Her husband's . was supposed to have exploded all over her for God's sake.

And yes, even in black and white, it should be clear as day to see.
But nothing, nada, zero, zilch!

It was all badly and obviously faked.
edit on 17-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

FlyersFan

JohnnySasaki
Also, she was even wearing a pink dress. Obviously it will still show blood, but in black and white it might not be as noticeable.


NY Times - Kennedy's Smart Pink Suit Preserved in National Archives
The blood has turned to powder. The stockings are full of powdered blood.

Swearing in picture
Jackie had the bloodstained clothing on during the swearing in. Everyone on the plane saw it, including the photographer. SHe 'turned slightly' for the picture so that the bloodstains on her skirt wouldn't show to the camera. The stains were on the side that her husband had been sitting on.


Do you have any idea how much blood comes out of a . wound, especially
a great big gaping one at the back?





Fail!



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

EvillerBob

OneFreeMan
...

Can you explain the lack of bloodstains on the back of her dress, even though
she was sitting on a blood-stained seat with the blood contents of her
husband pouring out the back of his . unto her lap?

...


Even if this were the case (and personally I think you are incorrect) what would it actually tell you? Are you suggesting that she was not actually in the car? Are you suggesting that the blood on the seat was added after the event?

If you are suggesting that she was not there, this seems quite a bold and contradictory assertion.

If you are suggesting that the blood on the seat was a "later addition", this doesn't really say anything one way or the other about events. At some point, they would have stopped the car and helped her get out. Without her in the seat, the body may well have slid over and down, leading to more blood being deposited on the seat than when she was sitting there. Indeed, Occam's Razor would suggest that this is far more likely than any conspiratorial theory.

If there is another reason why you think the absence of blood is relevant, I would be interested to hear it.


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


If blood is pouring from a gaping . wound, where would you expect
it to go? My answer is everywhere. The 'blood' was a later addition.

Do you realise just how profusely even minor . wounds bleed?
This is supposed to come from a fist size hole!
Everything should have been saturated.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Glad you showed up here Leo. I was going to post a link to your thread as I believe the work done showing that the Zapruder film was at the very least tampered with or doctored is very compelling.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

OneFreeMan

You are kidding, right? Are we even looking at the same picture?
That dress should have been darkly blood-stained all over the front and back.
Her husband's . was supposed to have exploded all over her for God's sake.

And yes, even in black and white, it should be clear as day to see.
But nothing, nada, zero, zilch!

It was all badly and obviously faked.
edit on 17-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: (no reason given)


No, unfortunately it wasn't. Sorry. And yes, I do know how much blood comes out of a . wound. I've watched people shoot themselves in the face, I've seen people's .'s being cut off etc.

The simple fact of the matter is, it happened the way it happened. You say there should have been more blood, but history proves you wrong. I don't even know why we're having this conversation. You're going to have to come up with a lot more than the level of blood shooting out of Kennedy's . to convince nearly anyone, and the fact that you are so convinced on that simple OPINION is quite embarrassing for you.

Remember this?



You're doing it again.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

JohnnySasaki

Mikeultra

JohnnySasaki

TheGreazel
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Oke thanks for the info , i Know about exit wounds , but i dunno ... i personally feel that if oswald himself was too lucky to make these shots all by himself.

TheGreazel


Like I've stated in a previous thread, the shot's were not hard. Hell, the limo even slows down for the . shot. The only thing difficult would be the sticky bolt of the cheap gun he used, but he was also trained in the Marines, and I'm sure he practiced with the gun. The distance was only about 85 yards. I actually find it odd that he didn't hit him in the . on the first shot. Nerves I guess?


FlyersFan
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Excellent post. Thank you for providing excellent information - straight from 'sniper training'.

I thought everyone knew that the entry wound was small and the exit wound was the 'big splatter'.
(which is clearly visible in the video). But apparently some folks don't know that.
Well .... they do now.

Again .. you provided excellent information.


No problemo. I appreciate the appreciation.

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


Regarding your thoughts on the 1st shot. Being the limo was driving away from the snipers lair from above, the aim point would have to been held high to remain on target. I'm no expert, but think of it like leading a shot while duck hunting.


I know all about shooting, dude. I will gladly post some of my groups, but as I've already done that in a previous thread, I'll refrain so as to not look like an a**hole, lol. Let's just say I know what I'm doing.


Bullets travel quite fast, and while not instant, at the 85 yards it had to travel, and the fact that the limo actually slowed down at the time of the shot, the shooter would not have had to compensate more than a few inches (maybe 2 or 3 max). All he would have had to do was aim at the top of Kennedy's ., and it would have been a bullseye. Windage is a non issue at that range.


I appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to this thread and others.

What do you think of the video below which overlays and syncs up the Dictabelt recording from the motorcycle cop and the Zapruder film?

In addition to there clearly being 4 shots heard (which caused the House Select Committee on Assassinations to declare that there was a conspiracy), I'm particularly interested in your thoughts about the final 2 shots.

They can clearly be heard during the "kill shot" moment of Zapruder. Would you say there were spaced too closely together to have come from one man using a bolt-action rifle?

It certainly seems so, but am interested in your knowledgeable opinion.

Here's the clip:


Anyone else have any thoughts?




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join