The driver DID shoot JFK in the head !!!!!

An image from inside the storm drain:

I think I have it all figured out. It was photographer, Tom Adkins. He was right there, on the spot.

Thanks for the visual aid ChiliDog. Out of curiousity, could you find any pictures to show the dimensions inside the sewer?

Peace

Sure thing - this link should give ya what you need.

www.jfklancer.com...

And a human inside it to give some perspective.

external image

[edit on 3/28/2006 by ChiliDog]

mod edit to resize image

[edit on 8-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Lee Harvey Oswald was honorably discharged from the USMC as a corporal (E3). That rank was a normal rate of progression In the USMC; one can safely conclude he did his job satisfactorily and posed no disciplinary problems. His job was as a ground radar operator. He was assigned to the hush-hush radar site in northern Japan. On Hokkaido, I believe. It is a few hundred miles south of Kamchatka - of KAL 007 notoriety - an “Off Limits” zone in the old USSR. The US had developed long range ground radar capable of “looking” 1,500-2,000 miles. The US was ahead in long range radar.

The US was routinely flying spy planes around and maybe over Kamchatka. As in U2s. Those planes would have been observed and followed on the radar that Oswald was operating. This information - Oswald’s part was not of much value - would have made Oswald of slight interest to the KGB when he defected to the USSR. It would have been yet another confirmation of what the USSR already knew.

Then, of course, for basically the same reasons, both the CIA and FBI would have interviewed Oswald when he returned to the US. Again, I say, he would not have known anything of much value. But this lack of knowledge needed to be confirmed, too. The FBI apparently decided to put him on the payroll as a “stringer” as a sort of a cheap way to keep an eye on him. It was much cheaper to pay him a $100 a month than to want to find him later.

Oswald was an uneducated person which some emotional overlays. His job in the USMC was mostly a “switch flipper” and he would not have had either access to or a reason to know anything about the classified workings of the ground radar sets. He would have kept a log book and recorded sightings as they appeared on his ‘scope. He would not have known a U2 from a B47, another craft we employed early in the Cold War for spying.

CONCLUSION. Oswald was a lone assassin. IMO, he was not an employee of the CIA nor more than an informant for the FBI. Neither wanted the public to know of their slight involvement with Oswald, so a cover up was initiated by both. Which has fueled conspiracy buffs ever since.


[edit on 4/3/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by helium3
Cause, if the driver did shoot JFK that would make sense of why jackie jumped out the back

I'm not sure if this has been clarified... but Jacie was not climbing on the back to get away, she went on the back to get the secret service agent to come in the back of the car with them. She even stated that after the fatal shot to the head, part of his scalp was in her hand, so as she was going to reach for the agent she handed him the piece of scalp. She's said that a few times...

I'm not sure why she woulda held on to the scalp, I woulda dropped it in a second

Originally posted by mr__black
I dont believe for 1 second that the driver shot kennedy...not one second.

Do you really think a grainy pic that you cant even make out that you have a to have a colour code for because its so fuzzy is the smoking gun in all this?

what about eye witnesses?

Jesus.
Its just a theory , you don't have to attack it. Besides, tell me thaty your a photographic expert and I'll believe you. Experts have learned to work with those grainy images. And yes, a handgun can cause someone's head to explode at such a short distance.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 8-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

well folks , I got an update.

it's not a turn around and boldly
shoot , but SHOT from the holster
with a rigged 45 , vented , fixed to
fire quietly , no shell to come
out . etc etc from under the arm !

just think , if it was your job
and you practiced the shot
over and over and over.
to the right and to the rear
you could hit , darn near the same
spot, everytime , wearing your pistol
under your arm firing thru the coat.


now I didn't look closely at the zapuder
film to see if it jibes or not.


I'll just say , it's a possibility.

it sure beats what I originally
thought was a crazy theory. [ an overt shot by the driver ]

as opposed to a covert shot by the driver


and one more thing...with ALL the
BLOODY MEDIA THERE , how come nobody
questioned how in the world did so many
media people [ WITH CAMERAS - STILLS AND
TELEVISION ] , NOT CAPTURE a BETTER SHOT
of the EVENT than ZAPRUDER DID ?

well ,you just know, that whatever may have existed once
is well protected from prying eyes , one way or another.
[locked up or destroyed ]

who knows how many television
cameras were recording that day ? anyone ?

Yawn...the driver DID NOT shoot anyone!!



That is images 311 to 316 of the Z film. It is OBVIOUS that your supposed gun is an illusion. What looks like a gun is the sun reflected off the top of the passenger's head and the arm is the curb. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT a gun. If it were a gun, Greer's arm would have to be about 6 feet long to bend as it supposedly does in that film.....

When will this bogus driver being the shooter nonsense ever end??

[edit on 26-8-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Stop using the color version and use the original black and white film. There is clearly something in his hand. The driver leans over to his right, and with his right hand points something (im not saying it's a gun) at the President.

To me, it looks like gun. Review the black and white version for yourselves.

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
That is images 311 to 316 of the Z film. It is OBVIOUS that your supposed gun is an illusion. What looks like a gun is the sun reflected off the top of the passenger's head and the arm is the curb.

Yeah maybe if the guys head is as reflective as the chrome on the car and the curb makes some mysterious dip.

By the way compare those framed you linked to the original Z film, gorey splatter and all, and tell me that hasn't been um... edited.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by twitchy]

Yeah maybe if the guys head is as reflective as the chrome on the car and the curb makes some mysterious dip.

By the way compare those framed you linked to the original Z film, gorey splatter and all, and tell me that hasn't been um... edited.

There is no mysterious "dip" in the curb......and the sun reflecting off of skin, hair, whatever is a natural occurance. Who knows what version any of us are looking at any more regarding the Z film....but it is quite clear in all of them that the gun in the driver's hand is an ILLUSION. I just used one example of the film. I could present every single one available and they will all show quite clearly that THERE IS NO GUN IN GREER'S HAND pointing at the president.

His left hand is quite clearly on the steering wheel. But if he were to use his left hand to shoot at the president while his back is mainly against the seat...then his arm would have to be about SIX FEET LONG!

Wait...I think I see your "dip"...it's the driver's SHOULDER blocking the curb....

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Again, look at the original Z film. He doesn't use his left arm to point. He uses his right. You can clearly see him lean over (left to right) with something in his hand. Again, I'm not saying it's a gun. There is something in his hand though.

GG.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Akraites]

Excitable_Boy

first , calm down.

my 1st reaction was THEY GOTTA BE FREAKING KIDDING ! but I went on to consider the comments anyway.

2nd , carefully read what I said,

cuz what I pointed out,

CAN'T BE SEEN FROM THE FILM !



and FWIW, I still have a hard time
believing it . however , jackie bolting
out the rear COULD have been from
seeing the drivers coat move,
or hearing the muffled shot, or both, prior
to her husbands head exploding.


dunno tho...just sayin'...

There's really not much point in debating details of the original film anyway, it was tampered with, lacking the digital technology we have now, there are tell tale signs that are discussed in detail here...
www.assassinationscience.com...

Fast Forwarding

Blurs


Lines and Signs

Lamp Post

The wound mistake

Disappearing Blood

Sprocket Holes

We're arguing the minor details of a big forgery.

Edit:
Have a Gander at this video...
video.google.com...

[edit on 27-8-2006 by twitchy]

and FWIW, I still have a hard time
believing it . however , jackie bolting
out the rear COULD have been from
seeing the drivers coat move,
or hearing the muffled shot, or both, prior
to her husbands head exploding.

It's pretty well known and unrefuted that she was attempting to retrieve a piece of her husband's skull. She wasn't running away from anything. It doesn't even look like she is trying to run away from anything. It looks like she is trying to get something off the back of the car......If she wanted to get out of the damn car, why didn't she just go out through her door or climb out over the side??...these would have been anyone's instincts if they were trying to "get away" and she wasn't!!

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

................

Wow. Again, stop looking at the friggin color version. Obviously its going to be doctored. Thats plain common sense. In regards to the subject title, just look at the black and white version.

In regards to the subject title, just look at the black and white version.

What difference does it make? Color or black and white? It's the same film. Do the people in the film do different things when they become colorized? Is Jackie trying to get the piece of JFK's skull in the colored version, but trying to escape in the black and white version??

Has it been doctored? Probably...as I said earlier, who knows what version any of us are looking at. The point is, there are certain things that are facts no matter whether the film is doctored or not and no matter whether it is color or black and white............

The difference is the black and white film is the original, and thus has no chance of being doctored. The colored film was made long afterwards and there are very noticeable differences in little details throughout the film. Compare and contrast if you dare.

I can't see anything in the driver's hand in the colored version, and yet I can clearly see something in the black and white. Why would there be something in one version but not in the other? If you want to study or analyze something, it's always better to look for the original source. View it.

However, if you just want to continue babbling about how it's impossible that someone from that distance could have possibly killed him, fine. Proceed with your uninformed babble.


[edit on 27-8-2006 by Akraites]

" It's pretty well known and unrefuted that she was
attempting to retrieve a piece of her husband's skull.
She wasn't running away from anything. It doesn't
even look like she is trying to run away from anything.
It looks like she is trying to get something off the back of the car....."

so ? it is also well known that oswald shot the prez !

but , ok fine , point taken.

-------------

still , no one addressed, the under the coat version !

----------

twitchy

nice links

and agree , we're arguing small

points of a major coverup.