It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 head 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 head wound. I've watched people shoot themselves in the face, I've seen people's head'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 head to convince nearly anyone, and the fact that you are so convinced on that simple OPINION is quite embarrassing for you.
You're doing it again.
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?
Your post amounts to a hill of beans!
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
If you watch that Film Real carefully , you can plainly see a Fragmenting Bullet entering the Presidents Forehead from the Front of the car . The trajectory of a Shot from Behind him is Not there IMO . Sorry.........(shrug)edit on 17-11-2013 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)
I looked closely. I still don't see it, and I don't know how you expect to see a speeding bullet, most likely traveling at over 2500fps on a slightly slowed down film from the 1960's that is probably filmed in 24fps.
Btw, I wasn't just pulling that stuff I said out of thin air. I've taken target interdiction classes (aka sniper training) that also teach how bullets react when they hit the body, among other things. Entry wounds leave very small holes, whereas exit wounds are almost always explosive and leave very large holes. What's more, there is minimal energy transfer from the bullet to the person getting hit with it. It's going so fast that it just zips through, so that alone debunks the head being pushed back from the bullet IMPACT. However, I could very well see the head being jerked back from the explosive force of the exit wound.
reply to post by NowanKenubi
You didn't watch the video I posted, did you? Bullets hitting a soda can, or a watermelon, don't exactly match up with what would happen when a bullet hit's a human head. That's why I took careful consideration to post a video of bullets hitting ballistic gel, beings it was designed to closely resemble human flesh.
I read an article by one of the bodyguards from that day. He said that Jackie jumped onto the back of the moving vehicle and was trying to gather the pieces of JFKs skull. It looks like they found the pieces. They were big enough to collect ....
(man this is a gross conversation)
Also, I don't know why they would have wanted to fake the autopsy photo's. I mean, from what I see in the video, the autopsy photo's seem fairly accurate. Bullet impact in back of head, and a large exit wound at the front. Seems to check out.
The only snag is that eye witness' say the car STOPPED and the film says it didn't.
Eyewitness' can get things wrong ... the film shows the car slowing waaaay down.
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.
If blood is pouring from a gaping head 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 head wounds bleed?
This is supposed to come from a fist size hole!
Everything should have been saturated.
Please keep your eyes on Jackie Kennedy.
What, you may ask, is she waiting for?
Please watch in full screen.
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.
I say it only makes sense to have more than one shooter, even if you hopefully only need the one.
1- I love how you start out (in another post) saying all you've got are pics of people holding the back of their heads, and it could be taken out of context, describing entry wounds, etc. Then you're given proof that's not the case