Jfk Photographic Conflicts Options

[rob balsamo]

I was doing some other research and came across the JFK Assassination. I have always wanted to ask this question as i never seen it addressed anywhere.

When you look at the Zapruder film of the fatal head shot, you see what appears to be JFK's right cheek being blown upward seperating from his cheekbone...




But when you see him after, his right cheek appears to be intact...


(IMG:http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/jfk2.gif)


Anyone ever come across this being addressed before?

[Carl Bank]

I didn't know that picture of his body, but
imo, this black & white portait was done after "they" remodeled his forehead.

The Zapruder flick shows his head was blowen from the front.
That also explains to me, why Jacky was trying to escape from the
most likely shooter, William Greer (driver), on to the trunk.

Everyone who got at least a bit of understanding of womens behaviours,
will never assume any situation when a woman decides to exit
a moving car, let alone that rapidly, if there is no direct thread inside the car.

Thread, debate and Zapruder-analysis by William Cooper are here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9469

Carl

[Rickysa]

I've always thought she was reaching for the fragment of skull blown off....very sad indeed

[Carl Bank]

I've always thought she was reaching for the fragment of skull blown off....very sad indeed

Ricky, one other fact about female behaviour is that most women won't touch bloody
skull fragments from human beings.
They'd screem, no doubt. They'll faint, the'll shake, they'll bury their faces in their hands...
...but no woman on this planet would exit a moving convertible and climb on the trunk to collect
some ugly pieces of bloody human flesh and bones, let alone seconds after some bullets flew around.
Hell, not even Chuck Norris would.

On the other hand, many people think that some dialysis-patient with a cellphone supervised 9/11
from some cave in some mountains some thousend miles away, Skyscraper fell like card-houses
after smoking for some hours and the earth is flat like a table and there are some sea monsters living
near the edges. Once we apply some simple common sense, most of these somes don't
make any sense at all. We all have been through that enlightement.

[Trapster]

This is THE Zapruder film footage.

Other MSM Zapruder footage show a zoomed in version. Zoomed in to the President and back seat.

In this version you can see the Assassin who fired the fatal shot into President John F. Kennedy's head.

Look closely at the limo driver. Ignore all the other action in the car, concentrate on the limo driver. Don't take your eyes off him. Stop at frame 308. Now, watch it 4 more times.



Yes, the man who fired the fatal shot at President Kennedy was the limo driver. JFK was assassinated by his Praetorian guard.

Is this the only piece of evidence that it was the Praetorian Guard who killed him? No, 1) watch the President's personal body guards being called off exactly when the limo turns into Dealy Plaza. 2) Watch the limo, driven by a WWII combat vetern and trained Secret Service driver, just about come to a full stop right in front of the 'Grassy Knoll'. He was reaching for his side arm at that point. 3) The Preident's head of security is recorded on the radio just after the assassination saying 'they' finally got him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpPjjKdUds

Why the Limo Driver? Because the was the final back up shooter. All the other shots fired into the limo either missed JFK or only wounded him. Rule #1 in political assassination: the target must die. Recall the failed assassination against Hitler by Von Stauffenberg. Recall that Hitler survives and goes nuts and kills anyone he thinks had anything to do with the attempt on his life? The target must die. It was left to the limo diver to fire the kill shot should all other shots fail.

Now you know the who.....do you understand the why?

This post has been edited by Trapster: May 11 2009, 10:05 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

This is THE Zapruder film footage.

Other MSM Zapruder footage show a zoomed in version. Zoomed in to the President and back seat.

In this version you can see the Assassin who fired the fatal shot into President John F. Kennedy's head.

Look closely at the limo driver. Ignore all the other action in the car, concentrate on the limo driver. Don't take your eyes off him. Stop at frame 308. Now, watch it 4 more times.



Yes, the man who fired the fatal shot at President Kennedy was the limo driver. JFK was assassinated by his Praetorian guard.

Is this the only piece of evidence that it was the Praetorian Guard who killed him? No, 1) watch the President's personal body guards being called off exactly when the limo turns into Dealy Plaza. 2) Watch the limo, driven by a WWII combat vetern and trained Secret Service driver, just about come to a full stop right in front of the 'Grassy Knoll'. He was reaching for his side arm at that point. 3) The Preident's head of security is recorded on the radio just after the assassination saying 'they' finally got him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpPjjKdUds

Why the Limo Driver? Because the was the final back up shooter. All the other shots fired into the limo either missed JFK or only wounded him. Rule #1 in political assassination: the target must die. Recall the failed assassination against Hitler by Von Stauffenberg. Recall that Hitler survives and goes nuts and kills anyone he thinks had anything to do with the attempt on his life? The target must die. It was left to the limo diver to fire the kill shot should all other shots fail.

Now you know the who.....do you understand the why?

Interesting article about Greer by so-called Kennedy expert Dale Myers. In trying to defend Greer, he makes the case against Greer even worse.

Supposedly Greer was so upset that he threw himself all over Jackie Kennedy. This poor woman just watched her husband get blown apart and she's got to console this jerk?

Then in an interview with his son, he claims, 'My father had absolutely no survivor's guilt." Wow, that a major emotional shift to go from totally blaming yourself, to no guilt at all, not even a little. Then he says, "it was pretty common knowledge that a person riding in an open car was subject to a bullet at any time...” Then why did the SS let Kennedy ride in an open car, if if was common knowledge that he was a sitting duck if he did?

Then Greer retired "from the Secret Service in 1966 due to a stomach ulcer that grew worse following the Kennedy assassination/" But he didn't have a guilty conscience?

The report of Jacequeline Kennedy’s bitterness toward Greer comes from the 1969 best-seller My Life With Jacqueline Kennedy, by Mary Gallagher, secretary to Mrs. Kennedy. Gallagher wrote, “She mentioned one Secret Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly to me, ‘He might just as well have been Miss Shaw!’,” a reference to the Kennedy children’s nanny. It was later confirmed that the unnamed agent was Greer.

This is in sharp contrast to Mrs. Kennedy’s reaction to Greer on the day of the assassination. Author William Manchester reported in Death of a President, without citation, that at Parkland Hospital, “Those who had been in the motorcade were racking their brains with if only this, if only that. One of them came to her [Jackie Kennedy]. Bill Greer, his face streaked with tears, took her head between his hands and squeezed until she thought he was going to squeeze her skull flat. He cried, ‘Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn’t mean to do it. I didn’t hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn’t help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I’d seen in time! Oh!’ Then he released her head and put his arms around her and wept on her shoulder.” [Death of a President, p.290]

In fact, Mrs. Kennedy felt so sorry for Greer that she requested that he drive the naval ambulance containing the casket to the naval hospital. [O’Donnell and Powers with McCarthy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, p.44]

So much for the conspiracy claim that Greer shooed the real ambulance driver’s away so that he could grab possession of the president’s body as part of the big coverup.

Much like Secret Service agent Clint Hill’s deeply troubled and guilt filled “what-if” self-examination (so vividly portrayed in a 1975 interview with Mike Wallace on CBS television’s 60 Minutes), Greer’s own self doubts must have been understandably overwhelming in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

Greer eventually came to accept what happened in Dallas (and to him, as the limousine’s driver) as the hand of fate. His son told researcher Vince Palamara, “My father certainly didn't blame himself; it's not one of those things - if only I was driving one mile per hour faster. My father had absolutely no survivor's guilt...he figured that events were kind out of their control...it was pretty common knowledge that a person riding in an open car was subject to a bullet at any time...”

Greer, who retired on disability from the Secret Service in 1966 due to a stomach ulcer that grew worse following the Kennedy assassination, died in 1985.

JFK Files

[Trapster]

Watch the video again and you will see Jackie jump out of her seat the moment the fatal shot is fired. She wanted out of the limo because she knew who had fired the fatal shot. Were it not for her personal body guard running to the limo, we would have had the First Lady out of the limo and screaming at the top of her lungs right in front of the Grassy Knoll.

Where was the President's personal body guard?

Exactly.

[Carl Bank]

Trapster,

Tell me more. I'm shocked at what you've suggeested from the video. I don't see any gun smoke
coming from the front of the car? I always thought the head shot came from a sniper from a forward
position of the vehicle.

As for the "why"; my limited research reveals a connection to the Northwoods operation. JFK was the thorn in that plan according to what
I've read.

As for the why, JFK's speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, not long before his assasination, speaks volumes -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS7l6i4w11U

Transscript of the entire speech -

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961



Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

[Trapster]

Turbo:

At frame 308 the gun is clearly in the hand of the limo driver, Greer. You won't see any smoke from the gun because handguns don't give off much smoke, except from the barrel. With the moving car and the fast movement of Greer's hand, and the wide angle shot taken by Zapruder, the smoke from the barrel is dissipated or too small to be picked up.

The shot did come from the front of JFK, but the shot was fired from within the car. Look at the limo driver's position when he fired the gun over his right shoulder. The bullet struck JFK on the right front of his head and blew through his brain exiting on the right back part of his head just behind his ear. Exactly what a shot fired from over the limo driver's right shoulder would have produced.

Yes, I was in a state of shock for days after I came to realize/accept this last year.

What does it all add up to: The assassination of JFK was the work of the Banker/Elite cabal that runs this country and is trying to control the rest of the world. JFK thought he was the 'leader of the free world'. A week before the assassination he had a huge argument with the CEO of US Steel, over the price of steel. JFK also signed an executive order creating a US Government issued currency to be backed by the US precious metal reserves....a restoration of the US Currency before the private Federal Reserve was created. Then there was the issue of Vietnam, which JFK was resisting a greater US commitment.

All this changed the day after JFK was killed.

About the assassination of US Presidents:

Lincoln and McKinley were assassinated by operatives of the British Empire. Do a little research there and you will see why. FDR was almost assassinated weeks before he was to take the Oath of Office, perhaps they did get him with poison those last days of WWII when FDR was no longer needed as victory was assured. Then there is the issue of Ronnie.....No way did the 'lone gunman' get that close amid all that security. Plus, they were running a nuclear transfer drill that day too (Ask B. Bowman about it)

Yep, decent, strong US Presidents seem to get killed.

PS. Carl is spot on.

This post has been edited by Trapster: May 13 2009, 05:30 PM

[Carl Bank]

Tino & Trapster - There is a whole long thread about Greer shooting JFK, just 1 clicks away:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9469

[GroundPounder]

there is a big analysis at:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/

i don't think they look at the driver having a gun, but he does turn his head at an inhumanly possible speed.

[Carl Bank]

Tino & Trapster - There is a whole long thread about Greer shooting JFK, just 1 clicks away:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9469

I posted the Youtube videos of the Cooper analysis that weren't available anymore again in the above thread.

Imo, this two threads need to be merged for the sake of prussian orderly fashion and accuracy.
Any mod to the rescue?



part time prussian: Carl

[BADBURD]

I was doing some other research and came across the JFK Assassination. I have always wanted to ask this question as i never seen it addressed anywhere.

When you look at the Zapruder film of the fatal head shot, you see what appears to be JFK's right cheek being blown upward seperating from his cheekbone...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8IHYSwK9Xac&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8IHYSwK9Xac&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


But when you see him after, his right cheek appears to be intact...


(IMG:http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/jfk2.gif)


Anyone ever come across this being addressed before?

Inside the Assassination Reveiw Board by Douglas Horne is a huge 5 volume book set where he talks about all the things he learned while working on it. He said the they analized the zapruder film frame by frame and the film had definitly been altered. They blacked the back of his head out and added the face blast to make it look like the shot came from the rear. From what he says everything to do with the case has been manipulated in some way or another.

Myself, I believe the fatal shot did come from the grassy knoll. All old footage points to that. Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane is a excellent video from the 60's with witnesses telling what they saw. It's on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=59...&feature=iv