Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2  (Read 1488 times)

Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« on: January 12, 2018, 06:05:33 PM »
I was interested that people were starting to dig into the real truth and not follow the Lee Harvey Oswald Rabbit Trail which is what you are supposed to do.  When you see the shots come in and break the windshield at frame 322 and frame 329, you know you don't have a bolt action rifle in play!  If you look closely at each of the Zapruder's frames now available on the internet, you will have to draw the same conclusion I have.  No lone gunman and a massive amount of people were involved in the storyline and coverup!!!

Background

The Warren Commission used the Zapruder Film to convict Lee Harvey Oswald by using z-313 and z-314.   You were not supposed to see the rest of the film/ frames and is the reason why it wasn't released for almost 12 years.   There was no head movement before and after this frame 313 as the president's head remained slumped through it all and remains in the same position before and after.  Note the impact should have moved the head forward but it didn't.  Between z-314 and z-330, They painted a white blob in front of the front part of his head and then re-introduced a red blob over his head (z-331) after the real head shot came in at z-329.      Clearly through the frames around z-313, there is no movement of back of his head, thereby revealing that it was painted in!  Can you believe how this was done?  You can clearly see the smudging/painting to make it look like a head explosion!   Hawkeye Productions from Rochester, NY were on the scene very quickly to modify and edit in as a professional manner as they could in the day.  Remember we are told there is an original film and 3 copies made - none of which varies on frames z-313/314!

If you agree,  they were painted in by animation experts to prove a bullet from behind theory, where did the bullets come from if in fact you believe it was an inside job to overthrow the government (Coup d'etat)?      Look at the neck wound coming from behind the sign (out of view of Zapruder's camera) and then about 5.5 seconds later, look at the 2 bullets which hit the president at frame 322 and 329 which come through the front windshield - clearly visible in the Zapruder film.  No change in the president's position up until near frame 322.  You can also look up the Zapruder Frames created from the original film and study and zoom in and you can see what I have said in my video is true.  It was such a farce!   The link below is a restored frame by frame of an original "Costella" copy produced from the Dealey Plaza Museum film we are told.   If you were to download it and look at it with a picture viewer, you almost can see it play before your eyes in slow motion.  You can also zoom in on frames which is what I did a lot of!

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Again study the lack of change in his head position which does not change around frame 313.   After suffering a neck wound, 5.5 seconds earlier (z-226 to z-322, 18 fps), the president was slumped over from that point forward until he sees the obvious shot coming in at frame 322!

He was conscious enough to "wince" back and raise his arm slightly to shield himself from this second shot at frame 322.   Judging from the glass spray,  (where Kellerman is supposed to be sitting), behind the windshield,   it looks like it hit him in the upper chest.  There was no more movement from him after that indicating a likely fatal blow.   There was no one to protect him for this entire period of time (5.5 seconds),  after hearing a reported shot by all and him grabbing his neck.  Of course most of the incident was masked in motorcycle engine roar which I would imagine helped distract the sound.  Distraction noise from grassy knoll could also distract crowd from looking at the President (a magician's trick!)

After the third and final shot at frame 329, Jacqueline Kennedy wants to climb out.   Frame 329 was likely the first gory mess on the trunk in my opinion and she realized if no one is protecting for 6 seconds,  it is time to leave.
You can watch the driver line himself up for these last 2 shots with a white marker in the grass.  How come people can't see the obvious?   He winces when shot comes through windshield just prior to frame 322!  Connally and Kellerman have ducked below seat level so that Kennedy sees the shot coming in from front.  Assassin rolls out of way of car and has been left in the film!

No investigation of car, no pictures of crime scene. Naturally if you want to hide things, you have to hide the evidence.  Testimony given by Nelly Connally, the wife of John Connally embellishes the attack on her husband.  Did she never sleep with her husband and see his wounds?  She keeps on saying the wounds were the size of a baseball and located in the middle of his chest and putting her hands over them to stop the bleeding!    Looking at his suit jacket on display, this is obviously doesn't even match her description or where he points in his first interview!    Obviously Nelly never saw her husband's wounds if he had any at all!!   His speech 5 days later from a hospital bed, further clarifies his storyline.  Obviously, he has been told to say the shot came from behind, so he points to his upper right shoulder towards the back!   At that point, he obviously didn't feel any pain in his chest or he would have pointed to the most obvious painful spot! 

This in my opinion is the Truth!  Watch my video and you will see that Lee Harvey Oswald shooting a bolt action rifle, (specialty marksman!) ,  from a window far away from the scene was framed as a patsy and was groomed for months before the assassination ever occurred.   It would have been very risky to fire at least 3 bullets in 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle in the car and risk hitting others!   We are told to look at that though and ignore the truth and the powers behind it.  It involved a very large coordinated effort to make the lone gunman theory into a believable story!  you needed the Zapruder film to convict!     

« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 03:25:12 AM by Allan Fritzke »

JFK Assassination Forum

JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« on: January 12, 2018, 06:05:33 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2018, 06:50:28 PM »
You're basing claims on this:

 


... when you should be using frames like these:




( Above two images: https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=4 )


( https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=5 )






( Above two images: https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z300-z349 )

Looks to me like naturally-occurring sun glint.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2018, 07:35:26 PM »
The Malcolm Summers clip that you claimed was from 2014 was not from 2014.  That's just when somebody uploaded that clip to Youtube!  It's from the 1988 Nova program.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 08:00:39 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2018, 07:35:26 PM »


Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2018, 02:51:58 AM »
Look at your frames that you have provided.  Where do you see Connally and Kellerman - so obscured that you can't see them in a position that would block the frontal assault on the President which occurred.  Obviously Connally's head is already below "shot line" and Kellerman's head is "blobbed" in over on Greer's door panel with Greer grimacing nicely!  Look at even the pictures you are providing - look at Nellie's flowers and look at Connally's head position!  Tell me exactly where you see them and I will tell you they are below seat level!!!!!

I am not only basing it on the obvious triangular pattern of the light reflection across a "flat black" surface,  but I am also basing it on the composite of the frames below.   Look also closely in the frame you provided.   The hand raised and the head moved in the back position at z-322 - clearly a reactionary pose to what was coming at him from the front.   Not a rearward reaction to a "brain blowout" 8 frames earlier, 1/2 a second earlier.  Look again, Jacqueline's non-reaction until after z-331 when Jacqueline wants to leave the car and the red blob is painted in once more!!!  Huge discrepancy - the frames are showing exactly what I am proving, Jacqueline did not see the z-313 head plume (6 feet high)  blowout as it never occurred!!!!

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z331.jpg



Lightbox film recreation, certainly can see the "redrawn" in red blob over the President's head as well which seems to be a carryover from z-313/314 for some reason.   Note it seems to coincide rather nicely with a windshield shot coming in at z-329 and no one present in the front seat passenger side in other words, ducked down yet!   I wonder why, nicely blurred as well!

Again look at the re-occurring red blob reappearing on the President's head at z-331!  As I said, they done some serious editing in these frames to provide evidence that Connally and Kellerman were in fact in positions to make a frontal assault not possible.   If it wasn't glass shatter that caused the light reflection,  what was it - a finely polished black suit jacket or Greer's suit jacket?  You don't catch glimmers of light for no reason or for translocation of shiny surfaces elsewhere in the car!!   It doesn't add up - glass shards do make nice evidence however!!!   That is absurd to think you are going to get a reflection off a black suit jacket - this is not a polished painted suit jacket surface lol!  It doesn't reflect light!    Never mind you see the assassin roll into the picture mere frames later.  Top that off with lacking photographs from non-existent newsman in front of him, never providing a photograph.  Films misdeveloped obviously!   Moorman's polaroid is all you get -lol!!  Drink the kool-aid if you like!!

Additionally,  look at Nellie Connally's testimony and how according to her,  there was a wound the size of a baseball in her husband's mid chest.  Now compare that to his testimony 5 days later from the hospital bed pointing to his shoulder as his biggest "pain" spot.   Compare this  to his provided suit jacket on the internet - obviously this lady has never seen his scars!!!!!!  (He was told to make sure you indicate the shots come from behind!)   She was married to him - I guess she was never intimate enough to know the difference between  a frontal chest shot and a "side shot" as evidenced by his suit jacket and the misevidence she gives.   Where is the truth or is it neither because she forget her story and never saw either??   I bet you never seen him in public again showing his war wound in a swin suit - lol!  I know they disallowed removing anything from Connally's body during an autopsy when he died - that was off limits!  They could have dissected his body even with a mere x-ray if it was allowed to  even determine that there were no fragments left in his thigh which someone had sought to gather. I have seen this in a newspaper - autopsy denied!  Obviously if you could take pictures of his body and not find scars, there is a problem in the whole story and it unravels!


« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 04:49:36 PM by Allan Fritzke »

Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2018, 03:22:47 AM »
Again, if you look at his testimony closer, he was standing on the grassy knoll - not on the island.  I pointed this out clearly in my video as HE stated it when asked in the "History Channel"  interview.      It is not much different than the original Jean Hill testimony which you John have vehemently denied as false!!   This,  I pointed out to you last year (December) before all threads were deleted!!  She had clearly stated that they were on the same side as the President - can't dispute those remarks in the original interview done before the FBI talked to her!!   Do you want me to paste in the quote again of her entire interview proving this for clarity of what she said?    I can also paste what Malcom Summer's said in his interview, should you want to refute what he said as well.
In the case of Malcom Summers, the interviewer tried to "pigeon hole" him as being the assassin that rolled across the Zapruder film.   He did not take the bait!!  You have no logical explanation as to why the assassin ended up rolling in the grass and why  the camera man in front of him stays absolutely rigid. Obviously the assassin was running from the front of the car and his momentum was carrying him in that direction - it was not a mere duck - it was a rollover!!!!!    That "pox-faced" imposter introduced to youtube in 2014 that you claim is Malcom Summers was an imposter!   Quote your original Nova proof of 1998 to start adding some credibility behind your argument!!    Look at the 2 pictures and you can't tell me they are the same people!     Surely you can open your eyes and see this!  Who do you work for?   Obviously not someone that wants the truth to come out and wants to keep people from knowing the real story!

Furthermore, why would Malcom Summers have a rather lengthy interview in 2002 and then have someone introduce footage about him in 2014 to contradict that interview and then later say it came out in 1998??    Talk about smoke and deception!    That doesn't make sense to introduce that 12 years later on a youtube video unless you want to discredit the original interview!   Why wait that long?    Obviously you wait that long until the original person is dead before you introduce that as evidence to confuse the situation and dissuade the original person's testimony!   In parallel,   this is about as bad as having it come to light that Senator-elect Moore was having sex with underage girls - introduced 2 weeks before his election and using  events occurring 40 years earlier - pretty bizarre and suspect!! 

Look at the evidence - obviously you are not suggesting a logical sequence like I am.  No one knows the identity of the rolling assassin and you would be a fool to suggest that it was Malcom Summers after watching his interview!!  Obviously this testimony was ignored just as Jean Hill's original testimony was!  Pretty Sad!!
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 05:12:09 AM by Allan Fritzke »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2018, 03:22:47 AM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2018, 06:33:36 PM »
Look at your frames that you have provided.  Where do you see Connally and Kellerman - so obscured that you can't see them in a position that would block the frontal assault on the President which occurred?    Obviously Connally's head is already below "shot line" and Kellerman's head is "blobbed" in over on Greer's door panel with Greer grimacing nicely!  Look at even the pictures you are providing - look at Nellie's flowers and look at Connally's head position!  One frame Connally head is not there and the next is - magic!!!  Tell me exactly where you see them and I will tell you they are below seat level!!!!!  You are not providing closeups of z-322 or z-329 - you have provided a zoom of z-321 and what's the other one?  You are not comparing apples to apples here my friend.    Do these frames even exist within your album?  ihttps://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=5   z-322 is not done in a closeup for obvious reasons I am guessing!!!!!  Please correct me if I am wrong.  I stand to be corrected.


I don't know why Z322 and Z329 are not available among the 35mm HQ scans in the JFK Assassination Gallery. I provided some HQ frames that were near to those points (Z321, Z323 and Z328) and links to where the frames resided. I also provided some fairly-good scans (though not as good as the 35mm HQ scans) of Z322 and Z329.

Rather than get weird over what we have to work with, how about justifying why you choose for your theory two frames that have obvious blur and panning errors, while frames surrounding them are clearer and more stable?

The film captured light diffusion at other places.



In Z162, light diffusion from sun glint on the limousine's grille extends to lighten the dark areas of the car's driver-side front tire and the Presidential flag.

Quote

Your evidence has not been presented adequately to persuade my logic!


Persuade your logic, uh? I must try harder if I'm going to dent your logic.

Quote

I am not only basing it on the obvious triangular pattern of the light reflection across a "flat black" surface on the original frames,  but I am also basing it on the composite of the frames below.   Look also closely in the frame you provided.   The hand raised and the head moved in the back position at z-321 - clearly a reactionary pose to what was coming at him from the front.    This is Not a rearward reaction to a "brain blowout" 8 frames earlier, 1/2 a second earlier.  Look again, Jacqueline's non-reaction until after z-331 when Jacqueline wants to leave the car and the red blob is painted in once more on the original frames!!!  Huge discrepancy - the frames are showing exactly what I am proving, Jacqueline did not see the z-313 head plume (6 feet high)  blowout as it never occurred!!!!   


"Jackie's non-reaction"?



Quote

Show me a blowup from your "blowups on z-331 and see how it compares to Costella's frames listed on the internet.  Compare one to the other and tell me how they edited out the red blob on the President's head.  While your at it, show blow ups of the z-322 and z-329 so that we can compare the "glass shard" reflection.   


I have tempted you with the best "blow ups" of Z322 and Z329 I could find. You still prefer the low-quality Costella scans.

Z331 is yet another of those blurred frames. The preceding frame shows that the "blob" in Z331 is a superimposition of the head wound with the sun-struck line of Jackie's left shoulder. The blur and multiple exposure is caused by panning error and/or camera shake.





Costello frame:



Quote

Post blowups which have a frame number on them so we can compare the two so we know that we are looking at the same frames.  You have not posted frame z-322 nor have you posted a blowup to compare to z-329 - they are not there!!

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z331.jpg


Your Costello frames have no frame nos. The main point remains that there is a quality issue between the Costello frames and the better-quality frames now available. All Costello did years ago was take a low-quality scan of the Zapruder film, add the sprocket information from adjoining frames and do an arbitrary pin-cushion correction. He then declared the results "accurately" showed what occurred.

Because he's a WC critic, loonies trusted his version of the film, some trusting it exclusively. But today--with better-quality scans available--the Costello "edit" is an example of garbage-in; garbage-out.

Quote

Look at the re-occurring red blob reappearing on the President's head at z-331!  As I said, they done some serious editing in these frames to provide evidence that Connally and Kellerman were in fact in positions to make a frontal assault not possible.   If it wasn't glass shatter that caused the light reflection,  what was it - a finely polished black suit jacket or Greer's suit jacket?  You don't catch glimmers of light for no reason or for translocation of shiny surfaces elsewhere in the car!!   It doesn't add up - glass shards do make nice evidence however!!!   That is absurd to think you are going to get a reflection off a black suit jacket - this is not a polished painted suit jacket surface lol!  It doesn't reflect light!   


LOL! Show where I claimed it was a reflection off a polished jacket. I need to correct it.

Quote

Never mind you see the assassin roll into the picture mere frames later. 


Of course you do.

Quote

Top that off with lacking photographs from non-existent newsman in front of him, never providing a photograph.  Films misdeveloped obviously!   Moorman's polaroid is all you get -lol!!  Drink the kool-aid if you like!!


There typically never was a press car in front of the limousine. Professional-quality news photos taken at Parkland show no damage to the right side of the limousine (where the Z322/329 "splintering" occurred).





Quote

Moorman's polaroid is all you get -lol!!  Drink the kool-aid if you like!!


Actually, we have the Muchmore film which shows no "splintering" or simmering glass splinters flying from the windshield in the Z322 -Z329 area.

   

Earlier though the film shows a sun-glint incident in which light overlays a portion the bystander's red jacket.



Quote

Additionally,  look at Nellie Connally's testimony and how according to her,  there was a wound the size of a baseball in her husband's mid chest.  Now compare that to his testimony 5 days later from the hospital bed pointing to his shoulder as his biggest "pain" spot.   Compare this  to his provided suit jacket on the internet - obviously this lady has never seen his scars!!!!!!  (He was told to make sure you indicate the shots come from behind!)   She was married to him - I guess she was never intimate enough to know the difference between  a frontal chest shot and a "side shot" as evidenced by his suit jacket and the misevidence she gives.   Where is the truth or is it neither because she forget her story and never saw either??   I bet you never seen him in public again showing his war wound in a swin suit - lol!  I know they disallowed removing anything from Connally's body during an autopsy when he died - that was off limits!  They could have dissected his body even with a mere x-ray if it was allowed to  even determine that there were no fragments left in his thigh which someone had sought to gather. I have seen this in a newspaper - autopsy denied!  Obviously if you could take pictures of his body and not find scars, there is a problem in the whole story and it unravels!

Haw-le Geeeze.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 06:43:34 PM by Jerry Organ »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2018, 09:36:15 PM »
Again, if you look at his testimony closer, he was standing on the grassy knoll - not on the island.

Gary Mack: "Let's make sure we've got the terminology straight.  The grassy knoll is the area up on the hill by the fence.  You were down on the grass by the street."

Malcolm Summers:  "Yes sir, yes sir.  I'm sorry I referred to it...but I could have crossed the two islands somewhat out there that separated between Main, Commerce, and Elm.

Quote
  I pointed this out clearly in my video as HE stated it when asked in the "History Channel"  interview.      It is not much different than the original Jean Hill testimony which you John have vehemently denied as false!!   This,  I pointed out to you last year (December) before all threads were deleted!!  She had clearly stated that they were on the same side as the President - can't dispute those remarks in the original interview done before the FBI talked to her!!

Jean Hill didn't say they were on the same side as the president.  She said "he was on our side of the street, and the President and Mrs. Kennedy were in the back seat".

Quote
You have no logical explanation as to why the assassin ended up rolling in the grass and why  the camera man in front of him stays absolutely rigid.

The "camera man" was James Altgens.  You should probably learn more about the case if you want to convince anybody that you have it all figured out.

Quote
Obviously the assassin was running from the front of the car and his momentum was carrying him in that direction

Obviously.   ::)

Quote
- it was not a mere duck - it was a rollover!!!!![/b]    That "pox-faced" imposter introduced to youtube in 2014 that you claim is Malcom Summers was an imposter!   Quote your original Nova proof of 1998 to start adding some credibility behind your argument!!

I guess you don't know how Youtube works.  If somebody creates a video with a clip from a program and uploads it to Youtube in 2014, that doesn't mean the material itself was created in 2014.

If you don't believe me then watch the entire Nova program this was lifted from here.


It was broadcast in November, 1988.

Quote
    Look at the 2 pictures and you can't tell me they are the same people!

What makes you think they're not the same person?

Quote
Look at the evidence - obviously you are not suggesting a logical sequence like I am. No one knows the identity of the rolling assassin and you would be a fool to suggest that it was Malcom Summers after watching his interview!!  Obviously this testimony was ignored just as Jean Hill's original testimony was!  Pretty Sad!!

There's nothing logical about anything you've said.  "Rolling assassin".  LOL.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President!
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2018, 09:36:15 PM »


Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2018, 01:05:01 AM »
Introduction and Prologue

Thanks for your comments Jerry Organ and pointing out name of camera man John Iacoletti and comments as well.   Who is the other guy dressed the same?   Thanks for sharing the Nova link.   I have found a lot of interesting things in that documentary that I will be looking at.   Particularly a scene with an empty grassy knoll at 26:35!   Jerry, I do like the frames you have recreated on your site.  I still find I use the Costella ones - no offense.   I find the dark to light contrast a little handier for illustration - not so washed up in the Costella frames (darker contrast)  and helps to enhance the detail.   You did a great job.  For example, If I look at the white marker present in the grass, it shows up better in a dark green format than when the background is lighter, making its presence more evident and easier for all to see.  Thanks again, for letting me share my pet theories!  Some of the lines present in the lightbox make them look like splices (example 318/319).

Muchmore Film Analysis

I can see what you are saying with a light pattern across the "lady in red",   However, this film has been so cut, edited. and obscured that it is beyond believable, very cut off at the end - reveals nothing new.    The only thing credible in that film is that it looks like there are 20 mph winds blowing.    The dresses and trench coat are blowing heavily towards the east!    There is much more poor panning (blurring) and camera shake whenever there was something notable to see.   That maybe is the result of the wind load on Muchmore.  The rest of the film was cut off and not returned to the individual!  Those would be the interesting ones - the ones just outside the front of car.    No money given for that footage - unlike Zapruder's!

Muchmore Film comparing to Zapruder

You have to correlate a blurred and obscured film with z-322 and z-329.   It was also filmed with 8 mm camera so frames 45/46 and 52/53 would be close to matches at 18 fps and the half second interval between the 2 last fatal shots in my opinion.    I don't have access to films other than what has bee made available on" Youtube".  The one I wanted to examine (AP) was protected and I was not able to download for "dissection".   Most cut off the end, some even sooner than others so you get less and less frames to look at.   There are clearly only a few seconds of useful film.  The completion of 52/53 (z-329) coincides with the man on the steps lifting his leg and starting to run off up the grassy knoll.   Some film cuts it off even before he has his foot fully lifted!!  That seems to be all we were allowed to see from that film, the rest of the recording has been mysteriously cut off - deemed insignificant or lost in developing!   Obviously cutting off the end of film is something you would find necessary if there is evidence against the lone gunman theory!  Here is the one I looked at to use in analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdreKlLhJY

These show heavy masking across windshield region of the car and show the same light aberration present at the exact same instant viewing from the other side of the road in the Zapruder's filming - very coincidental and helps one put the timeline on the frame and show how they both needed alteration some light aberration theory to justify.  No matter which way you look at, you were not supposed to see what unfolded on those frames.  Pan error, shake blur, paint to alter evidence.    Frame 45/46 and frame 52/53 are washed out and blurred on the windshield due to heavy "light aberration".   They did back this up with a very clear framed light aberration present as they cut the "lady in red" in two much early as well to justify the loss of clarity.   Nice film in that region - so you can expect and justify more light aberration to naturally occur later in the sequence!    That sequence where nothing happens has the least amount of panning and camera shake and exemplifies later justification. when footage is poorly panned, shaky and blurred!   It might also be due to someone later zooming and losing visual resolution.   During the critical event, everything is obscured and  pixelated into nonsense!  At any rate, this film was cut off before giving anything meaningful and reveals nothing of the assassination scene really.

A Stuart Reed Evidence Provider - Parallel Case

Compare this gathering of evidence to that provided by Stuart J. Reed who did not provide any testimony other than providing some very handy photos for the Warren Commission  (WC).  He had the "premonition" of not only being present when they apprehended Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO ) at the theater, but he also earlier that day took pictures of the 6th floor TSBD building showing open window and a bus on the road which they were hoping to kill LHO in.   His uncanny ability to be present in all these situation and take all the right photos to enter in as evidence to the WC documents is spooky.  In my opinion - a cameraman for the plot!  You can't win the lottery and get struck by lightning 3 times before you would accomplish what he did!   Leaves a paper with the FBI releasing his still footage film for them and then disappears from the investigation scene!   Never interviewed and questioned about his premonitions and how he had that uncanny ability to be at just the right place at the right time to record his many useful shots for the WC to use.

Malcom Summers  (The Rolling Assassin?!)

Similarly,  these films or slides have been tailor made to focus direction away from the truth.   Some would lead you to believe that Malcom Summers was the "assassin" at the front of the car that was running and rolling in behind the "steady" cameraman James Altgens in the Zapruder Film!!    Really the only eyewitness in the area reacting in this manner!   You are to believe it was him and not to question who this man really was other than just "another bystander"  trying to get a glimpse of the President.    Certainly not part of the plot!   
 Obviously in Summer's testimony in 2002 given to the History Channel - he was not on this "island" at all!  You see the two islands referred to are:
 1) Island between Main and Houston 
 2) Island between Main and Elm.
They make up the heart shaped structure and are split in two and surrounded by roads all the way around. Quite simple when he says he crossed the 2 islands from where he worked at the post office.   He gives an honest recount including the facts that he watched TV, read a lot of newspapers and so his testimony did have some "exterior" affects and influence without a doubt.   Like Jean Hill's original testimony - it is greatly ignored!    They can't alter his testimony of 2002 as he was point blank asked about where he was positioned.    He arrived five minutes before the assassination and crossed the TWO islands to end up on the grassy knoll.    (Obviously John you are agreeing with me as you stated the same thing!  Watch the whole interview, including the motorcycle cop throwing his bike down and looking up the grassy knoll!    He was on the elevated slope of  the edge of the grassy knoll, not the other side.  His interview conducted was an hour or more long in 2002 and worth watching.)     Here is another reason I believe he was honest with his interview in 2002.   He was a Protestant (Baptist)  at least at burial!  JFK was a known Catholic.  In his interview, he mentions how everyone around him in Dallas hated JFK.  This doesn't dissuade him from supporting the facts and telling the truth as he saw it - even though he may not have agreed or liked  JFK.  That tells me something of his character and not one to change the story so drastically from  the 1988 rendition!

 In order to discredit this statement, a look alike actor (my conjecture) was hired to run across the street saying it was actually him - this was posted on Youtube in 2014 on its own. I had also noticed that the imposter's  41 second clip is always at the top of the list on a Google search.   You can't miss it!   I wonder how that ordering is set up that it always come up first?   John Iacolleti  pointed out that this clip comes from a Nova Film of 1988.   Thanks for that.  I still maintain that his the original man's neck  is shorter, his adam's apple is way bigger and the birthmarks on the LHS of the picture are missing on the actor.  They only gave a very  brief glimpse of this man in that clip and not great frames to compare..    I don't see these 2 people as being the same - the testimonies don't match.  Sorry.  I studied both clips - not the same people in my opinion nor saying the same thing as they contradict.

Start looking at Z-344 where you see the assassin's shadow, he is on the move.  All other character shadows have no motion.  His shadow is already showing an outstretched arm.  His feet are outstretched a good 4 ft at Z-347.  Certainly moved from somewhere and goes into a 2 hand brace impact stance to brace the fall and then rolls over to complete the move.  Puts his hand on his knee Z-359 while sitting there, all the time eyes never leave the scene!   He has to catch his breath and leave with the car that pulls over to the side to whisk him out of there before the crowd arrives!   

Jean Hill's Same Day Testimony November 22, 1963

As well, certainly the intial testimony given by Jean Hill to a reporter before allegedly talking to the FBI was the only testimony from her that becomes believable in my opinion.   Any of her later recounts have to be discounted as false - especially when she has to be "re-positioned" on the island to match the film and alters her original story from the first days recount.     This was not something she knew about at her first interview - "before she ever talked to the FBI".   The reporter clearly mentioned this fact in that first interview.  Remember she never got to see the Zapruder film during that first interview hours after the event and so is the most "untainted" recount from her.     She stressed two shots fired and JFK being hit in the neck and that she was very close to this event.   This testimony does not coincide with her later re-portrayal as standing only 20 feet away (by the trunk) when a z-313 head shot sent a blood and brain matter plume 6 feet in the air!  Think about it, you were 175 feet from the neck shot and 20 feet from a gory mess - I would guess the second event becomes more instilled and the one you maybe stress.    However, she seem to give more "air time" to the neck shot!   Interesting to note that the "lady in red" does not pan the Presidential procession as it passes by in the Zapruder film.  She is not "panning" the limousine.  She seems to be gazing into the following processional car with the secret service agents.   At the time of that first interview, she said she was standing on the President's side of the road near where the neck shot occurred.    Is it possible she had not been told yet the exact place where Mary Moorman and her were to be positioned at the scene before they  became "famous" eye witnesses and fit the storyline?   Were they actors?   You can't find synergy in her initial testimony and with this island position everyone later positioned them at!   Her story changed so much - I prefer to go with original story in my investigation and assume her first interview as most truthful and accurate.   If there is a conspiracy, then her future interviews may have had outside influence.  I don't believe Jean Hill was there based on her original interview.

Mary Moorman Polaroid

Examine the frames with the "dark blue trench coated lady wearing white pants standing by the "lady with the bright red dress" on the Zapruder film,  Mary Moorman is not even looking into the polaroid viewfinder but is making eye contact with driver Greer.   Ideally her position is very poor for any camera shot - normal people would want to capture a picture from his side as it makes a nicer picture and from an elevated position.  Anyway, her camera is pointing away and behind the scene but her face/eyes appear to make face contact with driver Greer.   Her camera doesn't "pan" with the moving scene but remains fixated at a point well back of the traveling limousine.   I wonder why not?   She comes up with a lousy polaroid shot! 

AP James Altgens and FBI Agent (AP????)

There are 2 almost identically dressed well-suited motionless cameramen or 1 cameraman and FBI Agent?  next to her as well.   They don't move or flinch and are in perfect position to see it all and report with photographs.   No idea what the story is behind the mystery man was

James Altgens is so busy getting a photograph that he misses the assassin rolling in behind him!  His WC testimony was recorded July 22, 1964, 8 months after the event!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.

The Altgen6 phototograph was recorded at Z-253.  "Almost simultaneously" means 1.6 seconds when you see the neck shot come in at about Z-224 (18fps).  "Fraction ahead"??

Testimony Statement #1  (2nd shot statement)

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Mr. LIEBELER - Because you didn't see who fired it?

Testimony Statement #2 (next line for him) (additional 2nd shot reply)

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

Was Mr. Altgens testimony altered in the transcript?   It looks like he had examined Z-313/314 but didn't see anything more.  He missed stating the rest in his statement - The head moves up, arm goes up and then goes back down.  He kind of glossed over that!   It would have been an amazing to remember those little detail 8 months later and forget rest!  That was a small head down move at Z-313 which was used as evidence of bullet impact from behind.  Without no further head movement going back down would draw an important conclusion.  Making the observation that the head moved back a foot before dropping down would not be something the lone gunman supporters would like to see or hear!! 

He said he had preset his camera to 15 ft.  Adjusted the focus ring to 15 ft.  He now says that is exactly when the President was actually shot.   Focus ring pre-adjusted.  He didn't make the film shot though!   This position would have made him at Z-339,  10 frames past Z-329 (6ft at 5 mph) or 21 ft, and 26 frames past Z-313 (15 ft at 5 mph) or roughly 30 ft!   I would have to assume he had pre-seen some of the frames before his testimony (Z-313/314) or had been told about forward head movement and to stress that!  It was critical and was why those frames were selected for shot placement!

Three possibilities with what Altgen has admitted to:

1)  He is a professional and taking photos is an important part of his livelihood. Remember, he never flinched during the assassin.   He had it preset to take it at 15 ft (the closest shot),  but forgot in the excitement to push the button. As an Associated Press (AP) paid player he could have gained thousands from his photo. It would be like Zapruder turning his camera off.   He didn't flinch or duck - but forgot!
2)   He pushed the button but that picture was destroyed for obvious reasons.  He took a picture that needs to be cut.
3)   The film was developed but it was the last frame and so was misdeveloped; or maybe lost!

No professional photos!!!   Instead, you are to accept a lousy polaroid shot, 40 feet further down.   Who was the other guy besides Altgens?   It was understandable that Altgens misses seeing the assassin as he was focused on getting that perfect shot at 15 feet and was concentrating hard.   Was he part of the team?   He did leave a bag open which might be useful if you were!   What about the other guy? 

Back to Zapruder Film and Summary of  Island "Workers"

Of course,  the Zapruder film is the one that captures the assassin's pathway the best.  His shots line up very nicely when the car comes close to a stop with the white marker in the grass!  Driver Greer knows what he has to do.  He read the signal from "red lady" and "blue trenchcoat" and knows where he is at in this scene.   Rather than speeding up and making a getaway, he slows down and prepares the scene for attack!   The light aberration you see in z-322 and z-329,  coincide nicely with his "flinch" and duck towards windshield  - likely sun glare though - most would say or he put on the brakes!   Honestly, if you have glass flying around, you have to prepare yourself and that is the best way.    This is what you can see in those frames.   

"Flinch is like someone motioning their hand at your eyes, and force you to blink!   It is instinctive and compulsive and they didn't edit that out of those frames.  Clearly you see his face go forward to protect from glass splinters and shards!     Are there any other films which will show the assassin and where he was standing before the event?  No!  He came off the step area and quickly completed his task.  You will never see him crossing at the front - only ever see him lying on his butt!   You might see him rolling in other films but never his original position.    There may have been footage in the Muchmore film but it was understandably cutoff.  It was ended before revealing this move.

The Lady at the back of the scene z-305 to z-324

The girl at the back and in front of the blue trench coat, was running towards the limo.  She kept on running until z-324.   At this point, it appears something happened.  If you look in the cogs at z-323 and z-324, her dress balloons out.  Either it was a wind gust or she is preparing to drop!   She has no reaction at z-313/314 but may have had one after hearing the shot from z-322.

The Convoy

It is also very convenient, some footage posted from the follow up cars, stop, open doors and pick up individuals running towards them.  Are they fleeing the scene before the crowds arrive?   Pick up assassin, evidence and weapons before leaving the scene in a mop up operation before the crowds arrive?     As I pointed out before,  the people present in most of these frames were either authorities or newsmen.    They show scenes of chaos and people running towards the vehicles, not chasing up the hill after a suspected sniper.    Why leave the scene in those cars?  Was following a dead President more important than trying to get a story on the assassin?   There were people fleeing the scene via the motorcade!  The grassy knoll was not advertised as a place for crowds to go watch the parade - very fishy! 

It was relatively empty and at the end of the route.  Putting an assassin in front of the car and the crowds well behind the entourage on the other end, made it easy for someone to  not be seen.   Again, you will never see footage of the front of car, nor will you see original photos of  the crime scene - the car.  Windshields can be removed and replaced,  stage a few people around the car and take some camera shots to keep the misinformation going.   Control the evidence revealed.    Hollywood at its finest would create a set, take some pictures, find bullets on stretchers, whatever it takes!   Again, anyone present on the island is missing out as the best spot for spectating this event.  The grassy knoll offers elevation and was on the same sides as the President.   Zapruder chose the best spot.  Why didn't other filmers and spectators lined up on the island side of the car?

As I said, Hawkeye Productions/ Kodak processing film labs spent a lot of time on this film and they were the same experts that dissect U-2 spy plane footage and every other top secret spy document for the government intelligence agencies - not mere amateurs at what they did!  They were the best of the best in the day!   They had about 12 years though to get it right!

The Secret Service - The corps of the elite

This is where they fail miserably to provide answers in the story line which everyone should be questioning.    Are not secret service agents by their very design,  there to protect the President?    They have been trained to take evasive action and safely remove or protect dignitaries and keep them out of harm's way should an unforeseen event occur.  They are such a dedicated group that it means using your own body as a shield and sacrifice for those who have called upon you to serve and protect.   Again,  the secret service were all over LBJ during this scene - so they said!   Clamored on top of him and smothered to the floor he was!  What made the President any different?   LBJ was only the VP at the time!   No bodyguard reaction for the President,  6 seconds after the first shot - no reaction to gunfire - no speeding up, .   Instead, after the first shot was heard and they see the President grab his neck, they continue slowly or slow down the car to halt - rather than fleeing?     That doesn't make sense!  They were trained to be evasive - we could only hope!    Are these not professional body guards who will lay down their lives for those they are hired to protect?    Isn't it what they were hired to do?

The President was one of the most important people in the entire world at the time.  The Secret Service would have been trained to deal with these situations in a professional manner.   In there training, I have no doubt that they would be given multiple scenarios such as this one.  What to do in the event of an ambush!   They would carry out due diligence to protect their President - even if it means getting in the way of gunfire.   They also would have a getaway plan to guard the safety and security of a nation and VIPs!    You would expect they would be drilled in this and take frequent refresher courses.   This is not a bozo job! 

As a parallel,  a commercial airplane pilot is given training to land airplanes with one engine and no engine.  They are given all sorts of "what if" scenarios if instruments fail and so on.   These secret service agents would have been rigorously grilled as well to serve and protect and know what to do in this very situation.   They did not react in this situation!  Well, maybe for the Vice President they did!
   
JFK Films and Footage

One recurring theme with all of these films is that they NEVER show the front of the limousine at the assassination scene.   Why is that?   Every time this occurs, it is cut off , snipped and removed.   Obviously, you eyes are not supposed to see what happened at the very front of the car.  They never show the lead car in front of the limousine either.   They downplay the waiting "lead car" in the overpass as the assassination scene unfolded?  That car was way ahead of the procession -creeping along and waiting for the event to complete.  The Presidential limousine passed the lead car on the way to the hospital.  This was discussed at the WC as well, they stated the lead car was always kept close, maybe within 40 feet at all times! 

Obviously, many years have passed between the event and when the Zapruder film was released - about 12 years.  I understand there was a need to release to the WC z-313 and z-314 within days to help solidify the circumstantial evidence and prove that the lone gunman theory would stand.    Again,  evidence painted in to provide needed collaboration!  Why not release the entire film in 3 or 5 days after the event if you have nothing to hide?  Not a chance - Hawkeye Productions out of Rochester had a lot of work to do before that could take place.    2 copies we are told were given to the Secret Service, 1 sold to Time Life for $150,000 and the original kept by Zapruder.   Where are all 4 copies?    Obviously like the President's brain - they are missing or maybe stolen by his brother for dignity!

The Limousine - The Car Scene

One recurring theme with all of these films is that they NEVER show the front of the limousine at the assassination  scene as it happened.   If it exists, it never has been seen. The car as well should have been impounded and thoroughly examined.   Photographs all around.  It was whisked off to Washington instead by airplane.  If the assassination was an "inside" job, who would you trust to do this evaluation to get an unbiased view?

It is also interesting to note the partially rolled up window next to Nelly.   Was it rolled down by the time of the picture you have posted.     When was this picture introduced as evidence?  Or was it introduced?     That picture certainly looks like a nice shot to disprove a windshield shot theory as you can see the ladies dress clearly through it.   Nice evidence to prove no hole in windshield.  Was it a random shot like Stuart Reed's or one necessary aid lone gunman  evidence?   Nice shiny car with light aberration as well - over exposure?    A lot of testimony says there was a bullet hole in the windshield.

LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden/topic/20054-tampering-with-the-limo-in-the-jfk-altgens6/

Just another piece of conveniently placed evidence to disprove a hole in the windshield theory.   They should have taken a picture of the magical bullet as it rolled off the stretcher as well - well maybe they did!

The light aberration is tricky.  When you see light aberration, blurring, shaky camera and panning problems combined in important frames, is it merely by coincidence or part of a masking operation!     What you will find is that every time there is something to see, it will be spliced, cut, blurred, painted or just plain missing!    When you look at the Costella frames , you can see various edits where film edges don't quite seam together.  Which film did he use and which film did Jerry Organ scan/take pictures from?  Two different films or the same?    Certainly if you want to speed up a film,  you could cut out every other frame and it will appear faster. There is one huge event at z-331 and z-332.   The head virtually disappears from view on the frames following those - obviously more than just light aberration when you consider how it was left after affect of z-314.    Certainly you can't miss that something took place there!   For a while they leave a light enhanced "gold nugget" where his head was!!   If nothing more happened, you might as well cut the film off right there and remove the assassination tumbling into the scene.  That was a mistake!   If they were smart, they would have removed the rest of frames and made them disappear like other footage did.

Removal of Frames

The car literally jumps up in the frame z-331/z-332.   Maybe the shot at z-329 startled Zapruder and he shook the camera.   The gunshot noise may have caused this frame jump!   You certainly didn't see such a reaction by Zapruder at z-313/14 - everything remained nice and clear and in focus - other than paint added after developing!  I reiterate nothing happened at z-313/314.   The President still slumped over at that point and Jacqueline continuing  to eye his neck wound.   No camera reaction at z-313/314 as nothing changed during filming.   However, if you heard a shot coincident with z-329, you may have shook the camera - he was fairly close to the scene..   Remember a shot fired, could cause camera jump or what you saw in your camera lense disturbed you!  The only reason they didn't make the LHO lone gunman shot fit to this frame is because you could see the President's frontal reaction and it would not add up.  Going back in his seat and raising his arm does not match a shot from the rear.  So they chose the frames a few slides early!

Removing frames is also important if you want to speed the scene up.   Obviously the editors would know how to use that trick.  Snip out every other frame and maybe repeat a few and you could end up with the illusion of motion once more.   You may ask why?    Eye witnesses stated that the "motorcade momentarily halted".   I have quoted two of them in my video.     Notice again, the mainstream rhetoric that the motorcade never did come to a stop and was swiftly moving by at 15 mph.  After all the crowd was finished and it was time to hustle on down  to the luncheon meeting!   Again, this supports the argument that they sped off to the hospital just as fast as they could and that the Secret Service did their job throughout - just an unfortunate event!

Analogy to the 911 Investigation - An internal Inquiry

This assassin fired 2 bullets, 1/2 a second apart.   He was different than the neck shot assassin who I favored would be the umbrella man in front of sign with a small calibre gun so less noise.   Interesting with a 20 mph, how the umbrella remains motionless at the sign for quite a number of frames.   Strong man with those wind gusts you can see lifting dresses on the Muchmore Film!! 
Back to second assassin.  Again, his shots are consistent with Malcom's Summer's remembrance of the shot timing.   That interview was conducted by the History Channel in 2002.   I have included the excerpts in my Youtube video and I have the link embedded in the contents.   He tapped his desk to indicate shot timing and indicated he heard 3 shots in total.   One shot and then about 5 seconds later, 2 in fairly quick succession.  Certainly,  2 shots in quick succession  would not be physically possible with reload time  to accomplish this with a bolt action carcano rifle,    A 20 mph wind may have also affected shots in quick succession for grouping at that distance on a moving car!    So much of the evidence in this case suffers from misinformation.   No bullets, no pictures of crime scene, no proper autopsy report and no purported motive by LHO.  A complete  frame job.   It is like the 911 Twin Tower's investigation where they find a slightly burned recognizable terrorist passport fluttering in the street 2 blocks away from the crash and provide that as evidence that it came off the airplane and it was the hijacker's!   Or a car rented and abandoned by a terrorist hijacker at another scene near the airport,  complete with  suicide note and a box cutter thrown in for good measure which gives you a closed case on it all!    He had to have been one of those onboard, even though you can't prove it.  Totally circumstantial!  Its like someone committing suicide with 2 shots to the back of the head in a hotel room!

The Car Crime Scene - An "Internal" Investigation and its acceptance in good faith

The evidence provided from the limousine was held in secret and internally investigated.   Again, this was controlled and not examined by an independent third party agency.  As the system stands,   there is an element of accountability missing as those doing the investigating  are only accountable to themselves.    There is no room for a conspiracy theory.   It is simple,  if you operate above the law, are the law and make the laws, who keeps you accountable?   The path is circular in case you haven't noticed!  This could be a very serious over reach and abuse of power.   Does it still happen today?

What pictures and reports that were released may have been selected and filtered out to the public to prove or disprove what they want you to see?    This can be cited as reason of National Security and hid from you for 54 years or more!   "You need more evidence, maybe I can help you". Where is the accountability in corruption?

So one can never be sure if you investigate yourself, what you will yourself will find?    If I can create the paperwork and control it,  there is not a system of checks and balances The system breaks down.     So with that in mind,  was there a broken windshield?   Some have said there was and that it was replaced at the factory.    If there are no pictures,  I could park this limousine anywhere, stage a few actors and introduce it as required to support my story line - no broken windshield.  Especially if I want to the story line that will prove without a doubt that the bullets came from the 6th floor of the TSBD building and from behind!  Gets a little dodgy when you need a magic bullet though!
 
Remember, if the car was removed from the scene,  we are trusting that the people removing are conducting a proper examination of it in their quest to preserve truth, not protect themselves.   If you think, the players at the scene are involved and trying to cover things up,  what do you suppose you would find after they are done?  Certainly the fingers won't be pointing back at them!   That would be foolish!   So, no pictures of this limousine from any other direction other than the rear at the hospital, thus showing and proving an unbroken windshield.   They also show the  authorities putting on the bubble to preserve the evidence!    Was this done at the hospital?   Did they drive the car back to the airplane where it was loaded onto an airplane?   How long until the bubble arrived?   Who knows when those pictures were really taken and where!!     Looks to me, that unless you were part of the internal investigating group,  no one independent looked at the scene of this crime.   It was off limits to public scrutiny and was very controlled and limited to a trusted few such as the FBI!   

What did Hoover say was his biggest fear?    That they not lose the lone gunman scenario.   Lose this and "they would be wearing it"!      Did they slip it?   Only the  FBI and Secret Service were allowed to investigate.   An appointed WC with a former JFK fired CIA leader Allen Dulles was also left as part of the analyzing team to insure justice was served!      Shouldn't there have been an independent inquiry into his death?  Common sense would say the autopsy should have been done locally not in Washington - where was the crime committed?      All sorts of photographs of the car could have been introduced by the local Police Force if you were serious about having justice served.   Of course that would involve getting more people involved and maybe the truth would come out as someone would talk!  You would not have to deal with this and try to knock down even more conflicting evidence.   Using this reverse logic,  there is good reason it became a matter of internal investigation!
Why not make it very clear that all shots came from the 6th floor - very easily proved if it was factual and you would have added 1000% credibility to that story and no more conspiracy theorists.    Instead the evidence was not allowed to speak for itself without great manipulation all along the events.     Isn't pulling a bullet almost undamaged from a stretcher a little bit odd and a  pretty big coincidence?    Is that maybe not stretching it a little bit?    Altering, cutting, splicing and failure to provide all the evidence is obstruction of justice!   If you need to control the investigation of evidence, there is an alternative motive present and there is something very seriously wrong  with the investigation including its methodology.    The element of transparency was missing and is still missing today.    Heavily redacted and blacked out reports help the perpetrators get away with their crimes.  54 years later, they are still concerned with national security!   Not all documents released.  I certainly don't expect anything of significance is left to uncover.    All incriminating evidence would have been shredded years ago.

The Rolling Assassin and the President himself - Action Speaks louder than Words

I am actually surprised that they left the assassin in the film as he ran across in front of the car and rolled out of the way.  That is a smoking gun.     No one in the entire film has a momentum action like this man.   The people around him are still busy clapping, holding cameras and carrying on as if nothing has just happened.    The assassin sticks up like a sore thumb - he is generally ignored!   The most telling action comes from the President himself.  At the same time as driver Greer, flinches, an injured, "neck shot" President moves back in his seat and raises his arm - just before z-322 where it promptly drops, never to move again!   A chest shot by the looks of glass spray -yes the light is your friend in this case!  That tells you he was still conscious and that he saw something very close - clear line of sight to assassin's bullet!  From a slump to a reaction - vision was still clear! Go to work Hawkeye, see what you can do!
   
Secondly, look at the actions of this man who has just undergone a lobotomy in z-313 and makes a  move back against the purported bullet flow!   That is not an instinctive action and reflexive move to a lobotomy created by shell entering from the rear.  Again,  there is no "horror" reaction during z-313 by Jacqueline Kennedy, She continues to study his neck wound and try to understand what is happening.   Look at your frames Jerry in your previous post!   Zapruder's camera is rock steady during this period!  Most certainly a six foot plume of brain and blood from the wound as shown, would have covered his wife's dress, face and everything else in the car!  She would not be continuing to study his neck wound to figure out what has just happened!     If that shot was in fact the case, it would have added credibility to Nelly Connally's ABC TV interview where she mentions Jacqueline Kennedy had said "she had his brains in her hands!"    The whole morbid scene is farcical.  The "horror" reaction comes after z-329 where the third shot  hit JFK in the head and he is now beyond help and is in fact disfigured.  She decides to leave - a wise move based on an immediate reaction to what she just witnessed!    Z-331, turns the white face to a red blur. Look at the sequence,    Total lobotomy at z-313.    Face magically reappears and not a great draw job on it.  Back of head never changes position though, only paint on front.  It slowly subsides as frames progress.  No splatter on Jacqueline though - face is clean and very visible throughout, nothing in eyes!   President moves back in seat and raises arm.  A red blur appears once more at z-331.  Obviously  just happened!   Mis-panned, shaky and blurry - it is red, not a white blob anymore and isn't just a carryover from a pink dress in the mis-panning!  The frames after this show a head which totally disappears, just a "gold nugget" (reflecting light!)  sometimes blended in with the pink dress!    A serious head wound occurred at Z-329 and is a valid conclusion and z-313 has nothing to do with it!  Jackie saw the horror of Z-329 and bails!

Nelly and John Connally as 1st order Witnesses

As I pointed out with my Youtube video, look at Nellie's testimony and her claim of a huge wound in her husband's mid chest area.   Did she never sleep with him?    Did she never see his scars?  It begs you to ask - what scars?   Her story is at total odds with the suit jacket on display on the internet and at total odds with the Zapruder film.   If you look at her position right near z-350 in the film,  she has her head down behind her husband and over towards JFK's legs.   After this, you can see John Connally getting back up after the shooting event into an upright position after ducking.  He was face down on her legs at z-358.  Play the film back and watch him pop his head backup after the ordeal!  Pretty amazing for a guy who would be suffering from a 5 inch pulverized rib injury - must have been adrenalin!    She claims her husband was lying face up on her lap and it was all that her husband and her could do to keep him alive!!  Both there hands were needed to be pressed on a gaping wound the size of a baseball, bleeding profusely!    How many years did she live with him?     Maybe she divorced him and never see him naked - I don't know!   You can't start spinning bigger and bigger yarns and lies and get away with it!  Or can you?    Pretty amazing!    No one reproofs the story - it is taken for the gospel!   Just let your imagination run wild like a dingy on the ocean in a hurricane!!   The more you embellish it - the better it becomes.   Jean Hill - that is another story!
Even the suit jacket  shows a bigger hole on the back of the suit than the front which most ballistics experts tell you would be a frontal shot!   That too is at odds with his very 1ST interview where he points to his back and seemingly  knows where the shot came from that hit him!     Then he back tracks and recounts that he may not recall anything accurately as things happened so fast, maybe unconscious etc.    A true politician's spin.  Never commit and don't say anything!   After 5 days he has a full recovery other than a finger splint and "casted" arm hanging in a sling, nurse present!  No pain from a fractured rib, no coughing, no spluttering - no breathing difficulties - a perfect political speech after gaping wound and having 4 or 5 inches blown out of his 5th rib and pulverising it (WC report).   He is  seemingly an unscathed medical miracle after 5 days!  "Broken ribs are painful and I wouldn't be pointing to my back!"  They take months to heal - not 5 days!

Again, if the President seen what was coming from the front,  Connally and Kellerman were out of the way and not hurt.   Just need a little help from Hawkeye!

Closing Arguments

Even with the autopsy that was performed, let the doctors do their job. He was dead!   No!   Instead FBI and secret service are present  and  there to protect the body and "guide" the evidence taking.    I could understand one person being present.   Instead, there were lots of people present with the doctors to conjecture and tailor what they were to report and see!   Rather than let them investigate, they point the investigation.   What doesn't agree with your "storyline", gets redacted and removed from the evidence pile - pretty simple and pretty sad! 

By Texas law, the body should NOT have been removed from state and there should have been a Grand Jury appointed for trial.  Very simple and proper!  Those people were not obeying the rule of law and acted in a manner above the law.  They should have been thrown in jail and charged with obstruction of justice and contempt.   Instead you have a WC, no Grand Jury, no crime scene - no proper investigation of anything.    Car body, and all evidence removed from the scene and went back to Washington!!  Conspiracy!

The Lee Harvey Oswald Rabbit Trail - Follow the Money!

One look at Lee Harvey Oswald's tax return could tell you on whose payroll he was operating.   He defected to Russia, visited Cuba , had an American passport, had a Russian passport, then an American one again - very bizarre!  I guess he had a rich daddy that paid for all his escapades, married and children.   Follow the money!   The reality is that his tax return would have revealed more than what they would want you to discover about him and all you needed to know - end of story.   Who paid his bills and who did he work for?     This was an incredible framing that he underwent.  He was tailored and groomed for much of a year or even longer.  No light shed on how he was making money and traveling around the world to support himself.

He most definitely had to be removed without giving any statement and none was taken at all during his times spent in custody.   Or was it  conveniently shredded?    He became a cop killer (Tippit murder).  Again, pure conjecture on my part, but at that time,  it was hoped that another officer in the force would do his duty and seek revenge on him and kill him.  That would tie up the loose end rather conveniently.   If he actually was a cop killer, you wouldn't end up going to a theater to hide and wait for them to find you, would you?    You would be on the run!   If you DIDN'T know that you killed a cop, you just  might go there if you were following someone's instructions!    They apprehended this guy very fast under suspicious circumstances and without a fight.  I think they hoped he would resist and then they could shoot him.   My conjecture:

"If he was capable of killing a cop and the President, he was a very very dangerous felon and a sharpshooter too! We can't let him get away with this!  Kill him on sight and serve him justice he deserves!"   
 
He repeatedly declared his innocence and called out to the media to have a lawyer present.   No legal council was ever given!    It was pitiful the way they led him as shown in the film footage released.  Talk about a public lynching!  Hands up, declaring himself innocent.   He looked more like Jesus Christ carrying his cross to Calvary than a cop killer and dangerous sharpshooter / felon!   Truly patsy material!
« Last Edit: January 18, 2018, 01:07:21 AM by Allan Fritzke »

Offline John Anderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2018, 01:29:21 AM »
 Hands up, declaring himself innocent.   He looked more like Jesus Christ carrying his cross to Calvary than a cop killer and dangerous sharpshooter / felon!   Truly patsy material!

I'm done here. May you all find out the truth when you meet Oswald in Heaven

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2018, 01:29:21 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2018, 05:16:08 PM »
In order to discredit this statement, a look alike actor (my conjecture) was hired to run across the street saying it was actually him - this was posted on Youtube in 2014 on its own. I had also noticed that the imposter's  41 second clip is always at the top of the list on a Google search.   You can't miss it!   I wonder how that ordering is set up that it always come up first?   John Iacolleti  pointed out that this clip comes from a Nova Film of 1988.   Thanks for that.  I still maintain that his the original man's neck  is shorter, his adam's apple is way bigger and the birthmarks on the LHS of the picture are missing on the actor.  They only gave a very  brief glimpse of this man in that clip and not great frames to compare..    I don't see these 2 people as being the same - the testimonies don't match.  Sorry.  I studied both clips - not the same people in my opinion nor saying the same thing as they contradict.

 ::)  Well....I tried.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK - How "They" killed the 35th President! Volume 2
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2018, 05:16:08 PM »