JFK assassination film hoax

[nomo]

A simple introduction <br><br>On November 22, 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed while traveling down Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, in an open car in a motorcade. Everyone agrees about that.<br><br>Many people think that agencies of the U.S. Government have lied about or covered up details of the assassination.<br><br>For three decades, people thought the best proof of foul play was a 27-second home movie of the assassination taken by a Dallas dressmaker, Abraham Zapruder. It shows JFK’s head being blasted backwards and to his left:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/spray.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>This seems to tell us that the shooter was in front of the car on the right side, on the “grassy knoll” (small hill) next to Elm Street. But the U.S. Government insisted that JFK was shot by just one man hiding in a building far behind the limousine.<br><br>Things get more complicated when we look at the film frame-by-frame. As the bullet hits, JFK’s head first moves forwards:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/headmove.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>This makes things confusing. There seemed to be three possible explanations:<br><br>1. He was hit by two bullets at almost the same time (one from behind and then one from the front).<br><br>2. He was hit from behind, and a jet of brain matter exploding from the front caused his head to recoil backwards.<br><br>3. He was hit from behind and some sort of muscle reaction caused his head to fly backwards.<br><br>People tried to figure this out for three decades. Instead of clearing up the mystery, Zapruder’s film just made things more confusing.<br><br>In the 1990s, researchers started to realize that there was a fourth possible explanation. Zapruder’s film might also be a part of the lies and cover-up that agencies of the U.S. Government had weaved around the JFK assassination!<br><br>Scientists examined the Zapruder film. They found that, while most of it looks completely genuine, some of the images are impossible. They violate the laws of physics. They could not have come from Zapruder’s home movie camera.<br><br>Zapruder’s film is a very good forgery. It is almost perfect. Some mistakes took almost 40 years to find.<br><br>The scientists also proved that Zapruder’s film was not just changed a little bit. The whole film is a fake!<br><br>A movie film is just a strip of little photos (“frames”). The fake film was made by cutting and pasting real photos and film frames together to make new frames.<br><br>Because the Zapruder film is only 27 seconds long, less than 500 photos needed to be made. The forgers had almost a year to create them, before they were published. This was not difficult to do in 1963 and 1964. People had been creating high quality fake photos since the 1850s!<br><br>But what about the people who watched Zapruder’s film in the days after the assassination?<br><br>Film experts believe that a real film of the assassination was quickly altered on the evening of the assassination, using machines that could create Hollywood-style special effects (like Mary Poppins, created in 1964). Since the film was not shown on television, no one knows exactly what these people saw. But we do know that they described a film that is different to the film published in November 1964 as the “Zapruder film”!<br><br>In May 2003, scientists and researchers presented their latest findings at a conference in Duluth, Minnesota. This has now been described in a book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in September 2003.<br><br>The web pages below describe the best proofs that the Zapruder film is a fake. They describe some of the mistakes that the forgers made.<br><br>http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index.html<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Question:<br><br>If the film is indeed a hoax, why does the film not conform to the single-bullet theory? <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

well, that's always looked like an exit wound comming out of the front of the head to me. That's a problem I always had with assasination stuff, it did look to me like he was shot from behind. <p></p><i></i>

[dbeach]

fale film or not<br><br>JFK murder is the pivot pt for all that has happened since especially 9/11<br><br>It was an organized Nazi coup with the cooperation of much of the US govt<br><br>who on that day did comit High Treason.<br><br>Where was then Congressman GHW Bush on 11/22/63.?<br><br>I think he was one of the shooters who fired from the sewers of that area...How approrpriate that he used a sewer.<br><br>GHW Bush has been handsomely rewarded for his treachery on the USA...<br><br>The bush dynasty is activley delivering the US into a prison planet in a 1984 type society of fear.<br><br>Bush is plannning martial law NOW<br><br>HOW? another 9/11 type strike..?<br><br>bird flu?<br><br>natural disasters?<br><br>2006 or 2007...bush needs to make his move cuz he is losing control of some of his supporters.<br><br>That is my spin... <p></p><i></i>

[Asta]

I've always thought GHWB was involved in some way with the JFK assassination. Well, not always, I exaggerate, I didn't suspect him when I was eleven years old.<br><br>But I will always know where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news of Kennedy's death.<br><br>HOWEVER, in George the First's case, as reported by Kitty Kelly in her book, "The Family, The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty", she writes that, when asked of his whereabouts on that day, George the First answered that he could not recall. Which is interesting because there is documentation showing he was in Dallas the day of the assassination. <br><br>I'm not sure I agree he was standing in a sewer with a rifle, but I have no problem believing he was in Dallas as The Supervisor making sure the job got done.<br><br>Wasn't George the First involved in the CIA when Kennedy was president? Wasn't he more than just a congressman? <br><br>And when you also consider John Hinkley's father was tight with Neal Bush, well, it all starts reading like "Dune", the House of Bush risking everything to grab the brass ring. If Hinkley had succeeded, Bush the Elder would have become president in 1981. <br><br>I wonder what the consequences of that altered history could have been.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[dbeach]

the specifics of who exactly pulled the trigger are dwarfed by the event itself..<br><br>the ritual sacrifice of the king which has been done throughout history to traumatize the populace..<br><br>Mission accomplished.<br><br>9/11 retraumatized the US.<br><br>Descent of family Kennedy<br>Ascent of the bush dynasty<br><br>Irish nobles being murdered by British nobles.. <p></p><i></i>

[StarmanSkye]

et in Aracadia ego:<br><br>There IS no 'single-bullet theory' -- Perhaps you are thinking of the 'Magic Bullet', ie., that pristine-condition bullet recovered from the gurney Gov. Connally was lying on, the purported first bullet fired, striking Kennedy's back and exiting his throat, going through the seat-back and entering Connally's back, exiting his chest, striking his wrist, and being deflected downward and into his thigh?<br><br>The 'official' theory holds the second bullet 'missed', and the third bullet caused the mortal wound to Kennedy's rear-head/right-temple (though the realigned, enhanced third-frame presented in the Zaprudewr film analysis with 'false-blood' removed appears to show the whole top of Kennedy's head 'gone' (could the morgue photos have been of a wax model?)<br><br>Good question tho of WHY the 'fake' film didn't do a better job of conforming to the official theory, ie, the single-shooter theory of Oswald shooting from the Book Depository, as per KISS. But then, the 'evidence' worked as intended, didn't it? In this light, the Magic Bullet almost seems like an in-your-face calling-card, like, 'Sure it's planted evidence, it was a HIT, but WHAT are you or ennybody gonna do about it, eH?' The coup went down just as planned, and despite unofficial polls saying some 60 percent or more of Americans thinking it was a conspiracy, and even the special post-Warren Commission Congressional Investigation finding of a conspiracy, essentially NO ONE ELSE has been held to account, and official history still holds Oswald was a pro-Cuban terrorist who acted on his own (although I think the evidence shows he was set-up, likely used by CIA/Pentagon/State Dept. or other black ops.<br><br>I don't think the curbside sewer was a likely shooting-spot, as I recall the angle was wrong. Likewise, I doubt Bush I was professionally-expertise enough to be a shooter (tho there's no evidence one way or the other), tho he very well might have been involved to coordinate or oversee and report or etc.<br><br>The film analysis was VERY well-done, providing a compelling explanation for WHY the film was unavailable for 12 years, and why the film doesn't show the limo stopping (the head-forward motion of everyone sure indicates the car was braking right after the first shot -- there's even some indication of this after the 'fatal' head shot too, which might acount for the observation of forward-spraying blood/brain matter -- tho it doesn't fit the timeline or eyewitness testimony).<br><br>The lampost analysis I found to be a *bit* confusing -- as was the film-sprockets 'anomoly'.<br><br>Who was responsible for diverting the motorcade route that day, anyway? That could ONLY have been highly choreographed to make use of Oswald as a patsy who would be on-scene. But what IF there were other back-up contingency patsies in place at several other locations, who never even KNEW how close they might have come to being set-up to take the fall, depending on which route was eventually used? You KNOW 'these people' have plans for a whole set of what-ifs.<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>

[Iroquois]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Good question tho of WHY the 'fake' film didn't do a better job of conforming to the official theory, ie, the single-shooter theory of Oswald shooting from the Book Depository, as per KISS.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>A few months ago I felt I had to review the Nick Berg beheading video evidence one more time. When I did, I realized something I didn't the first time around. It wasn't just an obvious false-flag op, it was a deliberately obvious one. When I asked myself why the perpetrators would leave so many clues behind that it was a spook op, I came up with this. Iraq was a complex battle ground. There were a whole lot of talented groups of killers roaming around operating with a fair amount of autonomy. The people who put that video together had to make sure that noone with the resources to come after them would fail to see that they were not really a group of terrorists.<br><br>But, if that was the case, then this was likely already a convention; one that the perpetrators could count on being recognized by other spooks as long as the anomalies were obvious enough to compensate for the chaotic atmosphere and of the press (and hence the general public) ignoring the anomalies regardless of how obvious they were.<br><br>A major political event like the Kennedy assassination would be heavily scrutinized by non-participating intelligence groups, so the evidence would not have to be so blatant. Also, in 1963, the control of the press may not have been so thorough. In any case, the message would have been the same "back off, this is spook business". Of course, this would imply a sort of honor among thieves culture that even spooks of competing agendas adhere to.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

One book is CIA-centric.<br>1)'Conspiracy to Stop the Kennedys,' by Mathew Smith.<br>This goes into the deaths of Monroe, JFK, RFK, and the discrediting of Ted Kennedy at Chappaquidick.<br>Smith is British and a purportedly a long time JFK 'expert.'<br><br>But the other is very Mafia-centric and claims new info.<br>2)'Ultimate Sacrifice,' by Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann<br>This claims that a new document lead shows an invasion of Cuba planned for December 1963 called by the CIA 'AMWORLD.'<br><br>The 900 page book endorsed by ex-FBI William Turner claims that the Mafia infiltrated the CIA's plans to invade Cuba and used it to kill JFK. Oswald was being dipped to go into Cuba but the Mafia used him as a patsy and took advantage of the expected cover-up of the whole thing to get JFK.<br><br>This is supposed to explain why the CIA covered up so vigorously for so long.<br><br>I read some for free (a $30 book!) and wasn't convinced that the Mafia had gotten one up on the CIA. Their personnel were certainly thoroughly meshed making clear roles difficult to discern. <br><br>Also, I realize that the Mafia has been the whipping boy for the CIA for decades. I even expect that 'The Godfather' was made a prominent part of American pop culture to keep our minds on organized crime and forget the CIA.<br>But that's just my opinion.<br><br>The CIA cover-up with changing the motorcade route, altering the autopsy photos and brain, etc. keep me believing the CIA was at the heart of the crime to maintain control of 'our' government and keep the Vietnam War rolling along. <p></p><i></i>

[Pants Elk]

First off, I don't believe the Zapruder film is faked. It may be; I just don't believe it. Because it *seems* to refute the findings of the Warren Report. It always looked like he was shot from the front, and why would "they" go to all the trouble to produce a tiny clip that didn't back up the report's conclusions in an absolutely unambiguous way? Plus: although fake photography was certainly used as a political tool, the early examples (Pravda photography) are pretty easy to spot when you know they're there. Cut and paste. With today's computer technology, the Zapruder film would be a very, very obvious fake, and very easily shown to be. So it remains an unproven theory. I've been to that site, and it does seem possible, maybe probable, that the film has been tampered with. This is certainly more likely than it having been totally faked, frame by frame. BUT. The "tampered version" still seems to suggest, to laymen and non-ballistics experts like me and 99.999% of the population, that he wa shot from in front. If "they" wanted the clip to confirm the Committee's conclusions, they should have come up with something that looked, plainly and obviously, like it did just that.<br><br>(A sidebar about the blood: I'm no expert, but I imagine that blood can explode from a major wound like that as a mist? That is, not as a jet of liquid, but as an air-borne spray. Like you get from any bottle of (say) cleaning product spray. Squeeze the trigger - the spray doesn't hang about long, or leave stains. So the frames <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>not</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> showing blood after the head wound are not an issue for me. I do agree the film does look doctored here, though. The question, again, is <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>why</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. Because people would expect to see blood, and be more horrified by it?)<br><br>As to the (claimed) cuts in the movie; as I understand it, the author of the webpage says that frames have been deleted in order to hide the fact that he was shot from in front. I don't have any quarrel with this, but there's still the very obvious movement of the head - after the blood explosion, which I understand to be the absolute instant of impact - which suggests, strongly, that he was hit from the front. So maybe the film was tampered with as far as film-tampering technology would allow in those days. Clip a few frames, add a "distracting" bloodburst ...<br><br>But I'm looking at the above clips, and what interests me is what's happening before his head explodes. He's leaning forward, she's turning to him ... one interpretation could be that he's already been hit (in the chest?), and the head shot is the second shot. Normally Jackie would be waving to the crowds, not turning into him like this.<br><br>He's shot in the chest, his head jerks forward, Jackie turns ...<br>He's shot in the head.<br><br>Look at the clips with this in mind. It certainly looks to me like she's already reacting to a hit before the head explodes.<br><br>Both shots from in front. Which, if you think about it, is the place you'd position yourself if you were thinking of shooting someone in an open car, right? From the back, you'd have only the back of his head, no matter how high up a ladder you climbed. Assuming you think you have time for a couple of shots, you'd want to give yourself the best chance, and the biggest target. Why would you choose any other angle than from the front? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pantselk>Pants Elk</A> at: 1/4/06 5:24 am<br></i>

[dbeach]

Kennedy to Kerry..strange coincidence<br><br>the many intrigues of the american/euro nobility.<br><br>"Several of the Forbes family cashed out of their dealings in China after the Opium War, and reinvested in Europe and the United States. Some of the population growth of Chicago and Midwestern Plains states in the middle to late 19th century was due to John Murray Forbes' railroad projects in Michigan and Chicago. The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., from Chicago west to the Pacific was built by John Murray Forbes who had perhaps a reputation for sound financial management amongst the railroad tycoons of the day. In 1879, William Forbes, son of John Murray Forbes, risked the fortune to financially back Alexander Graham Bell's telephone company, and become president of the company, a risk which paid off. Cameron Forbes used his wealth to become Governor General of the Philippines. His niece Ruth Forbes Paine Young tapped her Forbes family inheritance to finance the International Peace Academy. Her husband invented the Bell Helicopter used in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In a tiny footnote to history, Ruth Forbes Paine Young's son, Michael R. Paine, and his wife Ruth Paine, allowed Maria Oswald, the wife of Lee Harvey Oswald, to live in their house as a family friend, and Oswald's rifle was stored for a time in the Paine's family garage."<br><br><br><br>Richard Kerrys in-laws had Oswald as a house guest...<br><br>NO BIGGIE move along nothing to see ..<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/forbes-family">www.answers.com/topic/forbes-family</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>OSS = Pre-CIA<br>OS wald<br>OS ama<br> <p></p><i></i>

[ivanbo2003]

Reading about JFK murder(head wound) gave me the weirdest idea/thought which i'm afraid to express right now since many of you out there (including myself 10 minutes ago) have high oppinion of him.<br>I'm gonna try to dig up on the net more info on this strange gut feeling(preceded by a strange movie I had finished watching just before reading new posts on open discussion board).<br> <p></p><i></i>

[ivanbo2003]

The gut feeling didn't go away...got stronger unfortunately.So ,maybe i am a crackpot afterall for even thinking about it,but i just can't help it.<br>It(the thought) glued itself to my brain,and i hope that I'll find some reasonable stuff here and on the net to prove myself wrong.I feel more upset when i remember all the things JFK and his brother wanted to change not only in America,but also in the world.<br><br>First take a look at this(the teory that i find others have also considered):<br>JFK didn't die?!? <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vmgemstonejfkalivepics.htm">www.newsmakingnews.com/vm...vepics.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>It's a weird thought I know...I searched the Jeff's blog and found nothing on Gemstone files.<br>Can anyone direct me pls if Jeff(or someone else) posted anything that disproves/proves? this.<br><br>Second,take a look at this(it's a long read I know;don't dismiss it because of use of bible prophecy,it's worth reading it even if you are an atheist/diff.religion member):<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.thefirstfruits.org/opendoor/ch_10.htm">www.thefirstfruits.org/op.../ch_10.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Because of this last link I feel so upset(i will not go into all of the things that happened in the (short) mean time while I was searching the net for additional information-probably I have just imagened things...weird stuff on TV,almost all somehow connected to my search;like I find something new and a sort of confirmation comes from some dialog from a well known Britain comedy show)<br>Excerpt from the last link:<br><br>"The first bullet that struck John F. Kennedy pierced his trapezius muscle on the right side of his spinal column and struck the nerve root coming from the first thoracic vertebra. This nerve root enters the brachial plexus, a group of nerves which controls the muscles of the right arm among other things.<br>The fact that the bullet struck this nerve root is confirmed by JFK's arm reflex immediately after the first shot. This nerve damage is responsible for JFK's "withered" (i.e., paralyzed) right arm. The withered right arm is also confirmed by some pictures taken of JFK on the Island of Skorpios in 1971 by George Duncastle, a British civil service employee. The pictures are legitimate, and they have surfaced several times since 1971. They were even shown on television at one point in time.<br>The second bullet entered the back of JFK's head tangentially and blew a fist-sized portion of his skull out on the right rear of his head. The right parietal and temporal lobes of his brain were almost completely blown away. One fragment of the bullet went all the way through the brain and lodged to the upper part of his right eye. The path of the bullet would have severed or severely damaged the optic nerve to his right eye. This caused his right eye to be totally blind."<br><br>Ok,this is only a stupid idiotic thought.<br>I apologize for even thinking about it,i'm shocked myself.<br>Still, I'm not sure about the whole thing of course(i emphasize that the tought came to me like a lightning,no previous web searching etc.).<br>Please post on even if you want to flame me,it's OK.I just want some rational thinking to disprove this stupid glued stuff. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ivanbo2003>ivanbo2003</A> at: 1/4/06 5:19 pm<br></i>

[anotherdrew]

Hell, who do you think runs our base on the dark side of the moon? <p></p><i></i>

[ivanbo2003]

Yes,I said flame is welcome.So is irony and sarcasm <p></p><i></i>