JFK Assassination: New Motorcade Footage Could Challenge Lone-Gunman Theory (Exclusive)

JFK Assassination: New Motorcade Footage Could Challenge Lone-Gunman Theory (Exclusive)

A Hollywood producer believes the footage may support John Kerry and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s comments doubting that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone

In a development that could shed new light on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Hollywood movie producer is shopping new, long-hidden footage of JFK's Dallas motorcade which the producer believes may support the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone, TheWrap has learned.

Stephen Bowen is a successful Texas-based real estate developer who is a principal at Waterstone Entertainment, represented by the Gersh Agency. Bowen acquired the footage from a local Houston television news producer who has held it for more than 40 years, according to an individual involved in the deal. Bowen decided the 50th anniversary of JFK's death was a good time to bring it to market.

See photos: 14 Conspiracy Movies That Came After the Assassination of JFK

TheWrap has not seen the footage. However, two individuals who have described portions of the tape that could challenge the lone-gunman theory ultimately supported by the Warren Commission.  “You can see a guy in the bushes with a gun,” said one of those individuals. “It looks like real footage, though I am not an expert.”

Two sources have told TheWrap that Gersh's Jay Cohen has agreed to broker the deal. The producers have arranged private screenings of the footage for news networks and other interested parties next week in Los Angeles, including CNN, Fox News and Reuters. While it's unclear exactly what the footage will depict, those familiar with Gersh's sales pitch say that Bowen believes it may help prove John Kerry and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s recent comments doubting that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination.

Also read: JFK Author Picks 7 Essential Assassination Books and Movies

The majority of the American public's exposure to the JFK assassination stems from the tape made by private citizen Abraham Zapruder, which Time Inc. purchased, though several frames were subsequently damaged. (Time later sold the film back to the Zapruder family.) Bowen's footage is believed to be an amalgamation of footage assembled from that fateful day in Dallas, including undamaged, missing frames from the Zapruder tape.

Also read: How the JFK Assassination Kicked Off the Rise of Paranoid Thrillers

Waterstone is an independent film and television production company that Bowen founded with Jeff Kalligheri, a producer on the 1999 horror-comedy “Lake Placid” and the 2012 James Franco-Winona Ryder thriller “The Letter,” which never saw wide theatrical release. Waterstone has several film projects in the works including the Chris Pine comedy “Mantivities,” and has a partnership with Innovation Films in Qatar.

Here's the Zapruder film:

  • Burphelson AFB

    “Bowen decided the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death was a good time to bring it to market.” This SHOULD read, “Bowen decided 50th anniv was a good time to cash in on this national tragedy.” There's nooo business like shoooow business…

    • http://villings.tumblr.com/ [A]

      A true american.

      • vlaerenko

        Well i hope the footage is genuine, and if he makes a lot of money with it, so be it. The truth is priceless!

  • Michael Lang

    How utterly boring. Give it up. Oswald killed him and that is that.

    • srawrats77

      That is what I have been saying for a long time. It's time for these people to give it a rest..but I guess they can't sell their books if they do.

    • mattlisa

      He may have pulled the trigger but how do we know there was no one involved in a conspiracy that put him up to it. Pretty convenient he was killed in custody!

      • Mark Chiddicks

        No, extremely inconvenient. it created the conspiracy industry, which makes America look very very stupid

    • bboyr

      why did Ruby just have to kill him??? answer that

      • sav

        To shut him up of course. Duh !

  • Mark O'Neill

    The Houston producer who kept the footage for 40 years should be questioned. Who does something like that?

    • jhs39

      If there was anything newsworthy in the footage the station in Texas that originally had it would have used it.

      • moneybags

        you are right, he probably used it to buy a new house.

      • Nick Rizzo

        No they won't, they know it is still too dangerous not to mention admitting the truth now would make them look like perennial naive fools. There is too much at stake to admit they were wrong.

    • Jsdksd

      Back then people still believed in honor and that your word meant something. I imagine a friendly ABC fellow encouraged him to “stay quiet”, for the “good of the country”. And that's just what he did. I've seen it over and over from people who lived then, they actually believed that the US was “good”. And perhaps back then it was.

    • Mark

      You obviously don’t know how govt works. If he brought that out 40 years ago he would have been buried in the desert with the others that disappeared. Wake up man.

  • trueamerican

    its a piece of american history. We need to see it. we can't just sweep everything under the rug, we need to hole our politicians and our government to a higher standard and if they weren't truthful about this, what else are they hiding?

  • The Shot From the Gassy Knowle

    As they say in Dallas–Bullshit.

  • DaveMikulec

    I have my own opinions on the matter, but I do find it astounding that people who normally distrust our government today (and for good reason) are so willing to believe the official government line on the assasination, without question.

    • Stuart W

      Dave,

      Perhaps it is difficult for you to put 50 years (a half-century) into historical perspective. A half-century represents 25% of total- time our nation established a Constitutional Republic! Consider:

      JFK the last of our presidents dealing with (relatively) small and honest government. Today's bloated gathering of “me first” politicians, caring more
      for personal power than the public-good, has done NOTHING to earn a citizens trust! On the contrary they've worked diligently to label themselves the ultimate scoundrels. They'll say anything to gain control of your life. Suggest starting with “….if you like your doctor (health plan) you can keep them,,,Period!

      Wake-up my friend!

      • DaveMikulec

        Having been around for more than a half-century, I'm well aware of the historical perspective and though our government may have been smaller (I've not looked up the actual figures), it was by no means an honest institution. Not by a long shot. Even back then.

        • stuart W

          Than try your reading-glasses; the term was “relatively” small and honest.

          The theme relating to the age our relatively short-time as a constitutional republic. If you believe our nation in early 1950's not a more kind and gentler nation its because you were much too young to know the difference. Honesty a virtue commonly practiced in early 1950's America, a state of grace virtually absent in the embryonic, sneering 21st Century. “Tho perhaps your Alfred E. Newman portrait aptly says it all!

    • Mark Chiddicks

      Its not a matter of believing the government its a matter of believing the evidence of Oswald's behaviour before and after the assassination which was clearly that of the lone nut he was.

      • DaveMikulec

        And unless you knew him personally, the only things we really know about Lee Harvey Oswald is what was told to us, by the government.

        • ace

          uh, what about what we've been told by his wife, brother, and the people who knew him and also believe he was guilty? his wife talked to the dallas police in 1963, the warren commission 4 times in 1964, and the house select committee on assassinations in 1978. she verified that he owned both guns, that she had taken the photo of him with the guns in the yard (which is constantly being studied and claimed to be a fake by conspiracy theorists), that he used the alias a. hidell, and spoke of plans to assassinate richard nixon. she also told them about when lee had attempted to kill general edwin walker months prior, which the police did not even have a suspect for. she even still had the note that he had left her with instructions in case he was killed or captured after assassinating general walker. the people who knew oswald best didn't doubt his guilt, but you do?

          • Nominay

            Oswald's wife was coerced into saying “lone nut theory” friendly things. She has since recanted and has claimed for a long time now, that her husband was not responsible for the JFK's death. Same with the photos.

          • Delman

            Not everything, not on Oswald's attempt on General Walker

          • Mike

            The Dallas Police told Gen. Walker that it was a 30.06 that fired at him; they recovered the shell. Oswald never owned a 30.06 and Walker never believed that Oswald was the one who fired on him.

          • ace

            please point out any of the facts i stated that she has since rescinded. he owned both guns, that was his alias, he shot at walker. i wouldn't expect her to be able to provide much more information than that and it all proves oswald's guilt. obviously as his wife she would want to believe that he was not guilty. in the decades since she has been able to find solace in the conspiracy theories that he was framed and can live in denial, but she hasn't ever claimed that those were not his guns and that she lied about him shooting at walker or that the picture was faked.

          • Stuart W

            Good thinking and research Ace! Naysayers don't understand that there are most probably more expert definitive books written regarding the Kennedy Assassination than any historical books based upon U.S. History; Civil War perhaps excluded. Can't understand the need to label virtually every negative event a “conspiracy”. Must be something in our genes not our jeans.

          • Jason Mcclure

            yeah maybe but he passed a cheek nitrate test on 22/11/63 he never fired a rifle…court admissable evidence

          • ace

            You wouldn't get gun powder on your cheek from firing a rifle, so it would make sense that he had none on his cheek. The cartridge is sealed into the chamber by the bolt of the rifle closing behind it. Upon firing, the cartridge case expands even more inside the chamber, completely filling it and preventing any nitrate gases from escaping onto the face. The fact that he didn't have gunpowder on his face means nothing, but the fact that he DID have gunpowder on his hands says it all.

          • macone

            Four FBI marksmen fired the rifle found in the book depository and they ALL tested positive for nitrate on their cheeks.

          • macone

            I relied on memory when I wrote;

            Four FBI marksmen fired the rifle found in the book depository and they ALL tested positive for nitrate on their cheeks.

            I was wrong. I googled it and found that it was actually seven FBI marksmen that test-fired the Carcano and tested positive for nitrate. The FBI report about this can be found at The Harold Weisberg Archive, record number 75-226

        • Mark Chiddicks

          Only by that peculiar American definition of ‘government’ that includes local police, though there's also his wife and work colleagues. The thing is ‘government’ isn't a single mind, its a lot of individual people. For the conspiracy theories to be correct it would be necessary for the entirety of ‘government’ to be working to a single purpose at all levels, which just isn't how the world has EVER worked.

          • Jim1952

            That's absurd. Why would it be necessary for the entire government to be involved in order for there to be a conspiracy? Just because you say so?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Every conspiracy theory I have ever seen requires dozens upon dozens of people to be lying and for the Warren Commission to have deliberately covered up the truth. Even if not the ENTIRE government its still a huge number of people. the world just doesn't work that way

          • Mike

            I really can't believe how some Americans are so incredibly gullible to think that events like a government inspired conspiracy to remove it's president ONLY happens in Banana Republics. Well, guess what dude? You live in a Banana Republic. If you're going to post at least start backing up your “Lone Nut” theories with FACTS.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            The facts are all the shots came from the same rifle, which belonged to Oswald, was brought by him to the building he worked in, that morning and fired from a floor that only he was on at the time, that he, and he alone fled the building immediately after the assassination, went home, picked up a gun, killed a police officer and attempted to fire on those that arrested him. Any other narrative you may have heard has been thoroughly debunked many times, but conspiracy theorists are the most closed minded of people – like creationists you start with the conclusion and look for evidence to support it. All the facts support the simple truth. The conspiracy theorists on the other hand base their ideas of lies like inaccurate seating positions for JFK and Connally to create a need for a magic bullet or claims that the movement of JFKs head suggests a shot from the front (simple physics proves otherwise and many demonstration have been made of this). I won't continue to debate this here – if you genuinely look for facts without a presumption of a conspiracy you'll find out I'm right. I don't have the time or energy to pursue a long debate here though, you'll have to do it on your own. The bottom line is that a conspiracy and cover up on the scale required is simply impossible because human beings don't have that level of competence.

        • fredjohns

          “but but but but but but”. LHO was a loser and a wanta-be hero who just happened to have the opportunity to shoot jfk.

          • Mike

            I don't hear you giving any FACTS to support you “Lone Nut” theory.

    • ace

      i was a conspiracy theorist for years. i believed people like oliver stone. it wasn't until casually coming across an article that pointed out the blatant lies and distortions in his movie that i even began to entertain the thought that the government WASN'T lying about the assassination. after going back and really studying the case and seeing the lies, distortions, and leaps in logic in all the conspiracy theory books and movies, and seeing the concrete evidence of oswald's guilt, i now believe that he acted alone. it can never be proven conclusively that there wasn't someone else involved in the planning, but there's no solid evidence proving that there was so it seems unlikely. i guess i spent most of my life not really wanting to believe that the case was as simple as one loser with a gun. a vast conspiracy and cover-up is a lot more interesting and exciting to study all these insane contradictory conspiracy theories and uncover the truth that “the man” doesn't want you to find, but the facts just don't support it. people just constantly keep cranking out books and specials claiming to have the smoking gun that proves their new theory and they keep getting more and more ridiculous.

      • Lee

        Maybe you should have watched Jackie retrieving a portion of her husband's skull from the trunk after it was blown off the top rear of his head. This was taken to the autopsy room where it was determined to have a portion of an exit wound in one corner.You need to study the case further.

        • Mark Chiddicks

          She never claimed to be doing that. You only have to watch the damned film to see that everything is ejected forwards and up[wards from JFK's head. How anyone can see that and not see that its a massive EXIT wound on the front on his scalp I have never been able to comprehend.

          • Nominay

            Look up Rose Cherami, Mark. Try explaining that away.

          • Delman

            The Heroin Addict?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            I think you should look her up and no just take your source's word on her. What Oliver Stone said she said, she never said.

          • JukeJointJimmee

            Exit wound…LOL.

        • ace

          you can see in the zapruder film that while the majority of the blood, skull fragments, and matter flew forward and ended up inside the limo, there was some spray from his head that went straight up in the air above him. as the limo moved forward and he flopped backward some of this was obviously going to land behind him. i've studied the case plenty.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      There's been decades of questions. those of us who believe the official line consider that all of these questions have been satisfactorily answered. Just because governments CAN lie doesn't mean they ALWAYS lie.

    • Mark

      The ones who believe the governments standard message ARE THE GOVT. They are paid hacks to post all over media sites to sway opinion. Take them away and 95% of everyone here agrees that kennedy was killed by more than one person. To think anything less than that is insanity and delusion which is rampant in America since our schools only breed sheep today.

      • Mark Chiddicks

        Wow – so I am part of the conspiracy am I? You are seriously deluded mate – I am not even American.

        • Mark

          You don’t have to be American. CIA, NSA and others have very long tentacles. Location doesn’t matter and as for JFK, there is NO DOUBT that there was more than one shooter. To those who have a brain and can think for themselves and don’t have an agenda posting on sites to create doubt, its pretty simple. And i wasn’t talking to you to begin with so your response is questionable plus your comments are very naive so either you are purposely making shit up or just a little low in the IQ area. But i do love your country if it makes you feel better.

      • ace

        so people who disagree with your theory are paid by the government to do so? that sounds reasonable, but maybe you should talk to a therapist about it just in case.

        • Mark

          Yes. People who disagree and believe the govt point of view are nuts. And if you do, you are the one that needs a therapist. There is no doubt there was more than one shooter. Grow up and start thinking.

    • fredjohns

      Not many believe it without question .. but there is simply no proof otherwise. You can see his head snap forward at frame 312 then as it explodes in 313 with a blood trail line going forward. If you ever shot a watermelon or a soda bottle .. it seldom explodes out of the rear .. it simply explodes .. just like his head.

      Even a marine gets lucky .. LHO hit a 6 inch moving target twice in 9 seconds .

      Maybe you can add another book to the existing 652 versions and can come up with a clever solution .

      • Mark Chiddicks

        Actually Fred he only hit JFK's head once, the first shot to hit was in the middle of his back, a far bigger target

        • Burkey

          But that was a 22 with the characteristics of a remington xp firestorm 100 of which there were 3 of those in play that day with one suppressed !

      • jr

        The part that gets me is that LHO was reported to be a sniper by training. Everything I know about snipers is that they would never go for a head shot. They would go for the center of mass.

      • Bh1

        His head was moving forward because he was already in distress after being hit in the throat. Further there were 59 witnesses that told investigators they heard shots from the grassy knoll of which the warren commission admitted dismissing.
        Lastly I believe it was a very compartmentalized operation with probably less than 30 individuals who knew the full scope of plan. Also research all the people who died of questionable circumstances during Garrisons and congresses investigations in the mid 70.s.

      • Burkey

        Greer put the brakes on the limo to keep JFK in the kill zone .That braking is clear in the Muchmore photos resulting in everyone pitching fwd slightly then the shot from the sewer and second knoll shot occurred a tength of a second apart. Windshield took shot from the front also another bullet hit the right side rear view mirror .The pictures are clear !

        • http://aattp.org/ Americans against TeaBillies

          There is no proof Greer slowed up intentionally to “stay in the kill zone”. There was commotion going on in the back seat with the FBI running up from the rear… and it was natural response. There is no evidence there were shooters in the sewers either.

          The crap you conspiracy kooks make up is dumbfounding.

    • Archangel

      Just to note – 1976 House Select Committee on Assassination DID conclude that it was likely Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy – not to say Oswald didn't fire, but they concluded he was unlikely the sole instigator

      • Jack

        House select committee based their conclusion on acustic evidence only. The acustic evidence has since been totally debunked.

        • Archangel

          I believe they suggested a possible conspiracy, not specifically a second shooter as suggested by early acoustic recordings of the shots

          • Mark Chiddicks

            No their only conclusion was a second shooter who failed to hit anyone. this by definition would be a conspiracy but the acoustic evidence was flawed and has been proven to be so since. They had no other evidence,

          • Archangel

            So much for the history channel :-)
            But to be fair the committee report did leave room for conspiracy beyond just a second gunman

  • Politiva_com

    “Bowen’s footage is believed to be an amalgamation of footage assembled from that fateful day in Dallas” That's new?

  • Jack is Back

    More nonsense. It's been conclusively proven all the bullets that hit Kennedy/Connolly came from behind. No other bullets, other than those 3 fired by Oswald, was ever discovered. All one needs to do is use common sense. This is just left wing stupidity now. It's factual, there was one gunman, get over it. The problem is that one gunman, especially one who was a communist, doesn't fit the narrative.

    • jheartney

      I'm as left as they come, and I don't believe any of the Kennedy assassination theories. This isn't a right-left issue.

      • robertsgt40

        What's truly sad here is you still believe in the false left/right paradigm

    • jimdog

      You are an idiot! Read the facts about the bullets. Nothing has been conclusively proven except Kennedy's death!

      • robertsgt40

        No kddding. Remember Arlen Specter “finding” the magic?

    • Daniel

      Avowed communist. Maybe that was his cover story?

      Apparently, the office he was working out of when handing out the Cuban leaflets was linked to the CIA.

  • walter

    Why do liberals think they can just invent their own facts when real facts get in the way?

    • jkev57

      Uh, Walter, I think that falls under general human nature and isn't dependent upon a particular political outlook.

    • Kali Higgins

      They don't, you are suffering from delusion, and projection, as it is the Republi-com's who do this.

    • Its Jess

      You must have heard that on Faux news.

    • Neil McNab

      Like your lot made up Death Panels etc. You gotta be kidding!!

  • Richard Warnick

    Ah, the “guy in the bushes” theory. That explains EVERYTHING. ;-)

  • Jim

    Oliver Stone, “they” apologize.

  • Its Jess

    I've done a lot of research on this and believe Oswald shot Kennedy but anyone who thinks it's certain doesn't know all of the facts. The world needs to know the truth and until that happens the theories will never stop. I'm ok with any new evidence coming to light.

  • Ardent Hollings

    E. Howard Hunt, on his deathbed, confessed to killing JFK (Rolling Stone, Apr 05, 2007 1:15 PM). But the problem is this:

    “It is easier to fool the people, than to convince them they have been fooled” ~ Mark Twain

    • Nominay

      Why was E. Howard Hunt's testimony before the HSCA in 1978 and when he was on trial for the Liberty Lobby lawsuit in 1984 important, but not his deathbed confession? Hunt was found guilty in the latter, and later admitted he lied all about his knowledge/participation of the JFK plot. He sought immunity in '84 to come clean, didn't get it, so he didn't tell the truth until near the end.

      • Delman

        LA Times wouldn't touch the story.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      And as he was executed Doctor Neil Cream confessed to being Jack the Ripper, despite not living in London at the time…

  • Edward P Fahey Jr

    Whoever he sells the film to, Bowen should keep a clean, first generation copy in a safety deposit vault, just as insurance. Once these ‘news’ organizations get a hold of the film, frames turn up missing, or are reversed in sequence, and painted over with mattes. Let's keep everybody honest, this time.

  • Michael Rinella

    The problem is that you have people claiming to have “real video proof” of everything from bigfoot to UFOs and they just milk every ounce of attention they can before quietly disappearing before showing any of their footage.

    • UncleSam

      True but those people didnt have a major Hollywood agency verifying and repping the sale of that footage. Speaks volumes. I need to see this footage

  • bboyr

    MLK, JFK and Bobby all killed by lone Wacko Birds. Only if you believe racism is over.

    • axe weilder

      I've said it for years. thanks. bboyr

  • A.L. Hern

    “A guy in the bushes with a gun”…even though the bullets that struck JFK and Gov.
    John Connolly came from a high angle — precisely from where Lee Harvey Oswald was firing in the Dallas Book Depository — a fact that no one has ever disputed.

    ANY gunfire from ground level would have attracted instant attention from those in the crowd also at ground level, but there was none.

    The problem is that those who believe in conspiracy theories don't really care about the substance of those theories — if any — but revel in the notion that they belong to an exclusive club that allows them to feel superior to all those who refuse to believe.

    • Neil McNab

      And the smell of gunpowder reported by Sen. Yarbrough amongst others? This just kinda drifted DOWN to the Grassy Knoll end of Dealey Plaza from the TSBD did it?

      • Mark Chiddicks

        Did the assassin use a flintlock musket?

        • Neil McNab

          Oh how terribly clever!

          • Mark Chiddicks

            That'd be the only explanation for puffs of smoke and a smell of gunpowder

          • Neil McNab

            So you now think you know more about firearms than senator Yarbrough who was a, get this, lieutenant colonel in WW2!! Time for bed, my lad.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            No, I think I know more than YOU. I assume Yarborough never said what you believe he said

          • Neil McNab

            Haha! Now that your argument has evaporated much like smoke on the grassy knoll, you're disputing Yarbrough's words. One as palpably ill-informed about the JFK murder as you should NEVER assume lol.

    • robersl

      The problem with what you say is that out of 90 witnesses that were interviewed, 58 said that shots came from the grassy knoll. So, yes, it did attack instant attention.

      • ace

        in the study by the house select committee on assassinations, of 178 witness statements, 46 said the shots came from the book depository, 21 said from the grassy knoll, 29 said from “other” directions, and 78 were unable to tell because dealey plaza is surrounded on 3 sides by multi-story buildings, making it very prone to echoing.
        the HSCA conducted acoustics tests in dealey plaza, firing fifty to sixty shots from the book depository and from the grassy knoll, and determined that the sound of a shot fired in dealey plaza (whether from the book depository or from the grassy knoll) echoes strongly off of the post office annex and arrives about 1 second after the initial sound of the gunshot itself. gary mack, the curator of the 6th floor museum in dealey plaza who himself leans toward the conspiracy theory, was present for the tests, and though he knew where the shots were coming from, when he stood on the street level and listened to the shots/echoes he himself became confused and said “it's understandable why no one knew for sure where the shots were fired from.”
        such varied witness accounts for such an abrupt, shocking, chaotic, confusing, and highly echoed event is not at all conclusive evidence of the shots being fired from any particular direction.

    • Neil McNab

      Twaddle. You're not a psychologist so stop talking like one.

  • MrEvillete

    50 years ago today, LBJ arranged for the public demolition of JFKs cranium, resulting in a massive explosion of brain matter in Dallas, leading to a murderous war in Vietnam.

    About 12 years ago, GWB arranged for the public demolition of the World Trade Center towers (1,2, AND 7), resulting in a massive explosion of blood and dust in New York, leading to a murderous war in Iraq.

    It is clear that the flesh-eating virus embodied by LBJ, GWB, and their cohorts require OVERKILL to not only ensure they meet their immediate murderous goals, but to create SHOCK AND AWE, to ensure that we DARE NOT question their acts, nor stand in the way of follow-on acts of murder and mayhem.

    • teemo

      You are all wrong, it was a low flying high speed ufo that hit Kennedy in the head.

  • Lisa Ann Donahue

    Potential energy and kinetic energy is all the proof i need.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      Proof that the shot was from the rear, yes.
      It is impossible for a bullet to knock someone forward with more force than the shooter is thrown back by the recoil. JFK's backwards movement is a combination of a contraction due to having his brain destroyed and the jet effect of the brains ejecting forwards from his head. Gunshots simply don't throw people in the direction the bullet is travelling

  • Mike

    Even if this is the real deal, it will never make it to the public spaces intact. This is about money, not the truth.

  • barry soetoro

    Translation: Obama LIED to 300 MILLION Americans, and the usual distractions (knockout game; random shootings; Piers Morgan; Oprah) aren't stopping his freefalling poll numbers.

    Solution? Bigger distraction, aka ‘new JFK footage.’

    • Neil McNab

      My guess is that you voted TWICE for George W Bush therefore your opinion on pretty much anything is invalid. Now rest that pea-sized brain and play some X Box.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      Freefalling? His approval numbers have dropped 2 points in 6 months – that's not free fall! you do know people can look these things up?

  • Daniel

    One thing I never understood is if all the bullets came from behind, why
    did Kennedy's head jerk backwards? Why did Dan Rather say
    when he saw the Zappruder film that it had jerked forward? Remember, no one had seen
    the film at that point. It was purchased by Life and remained mostly unseen for several years.

    • Basil Zangare

      Dan Rather is correct. like my self, Dan Rather was a U.S. Marine. We know from shots being fired that if you were hit from behind by a bullet or a fist, you would jerk forward. However after watching this video several times and in slow motion. It is clear that the bullet that first hit Kennedy came from behind as he grabbed for his throat and slumped forward. If you look closely at the second shot, you will see first blood splatter from the front right of his head, and jerks back and to the left. I first thought from directly from in front of the limo, but that means the shooter would have hit the windshield. After examining to the slight right and to the front of the limo, I observed the same famous grassy knoll everyone has kept talking about. Also, after seeing the position of the gun shot wounds in autopsy reports, a 6th floor was at a steep angle to be able to strike Kennedy in the back and come out directly below is throat striking governor Connelly in the back, coming out his chest and into his wrist and left thigh. It sounds to me like 2 shooters and oswalds gun and bullet shells were planted.

      • sav

        Correctamundo. The bullet that hit Kennedy in the back must have been fired from a point lower than the 6th floor, maybe a low floor in the Dal-Tex building. There is a good chance that the gun found on the 6th floor was planted early and not fired by anyone at 12.30. Think about how tough it would have been for a shooter on the 6th floor to exit the building unseen.

        • Basil Zangare

          If you go to you tube and type in video of JFK assasaination Harris presentation you will see a video of 1 hour and 16 min of frame by frame of all video vantage points and shows possible places on the third floor of the del tex building, along with other evidence that is just way beyond coincidence.

          • coldlady99

            Right,Basil! Also, when blood snakes up the side of Kennedy's head in one of the frames, it completely disappears two frames later! If someone bleeds profusely, the blood splatters around on the car and other people-but in the Zapruder film, it disappears!

        • Mark Chiddicks

          Oswald was seen leaving the building, so what's your point?

      • Daniel

        Search YouTube for “Dan Rather's account from November 25, 1963”.

        “Reporter Dan Rather was able to see the Zapruder footage and later
        narrated the film to CBS national television coverage, claiming that he
        saw the President's head “went forward with considerable violence.” He
        failed to mention the backward motion made famous in the Oliver Stone
        movie, JFK. His omission seemed to confirm that the single shooter
        theory with just Oswald firing from the rear. When the Zapruder film
        became public, he was forced to apologize saying it was “an honest
        error.”.”

        • Mark Chiddicks

          It certainly was an error, since a forward movement would have been evidence of a shot from the FRONT.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      Because half his brain sprayed out the front right – the head is thrown back as a simple physical reaction to that. Its basic physics.

      • Daniel

        Yeah, I just watched the Penn & Teller demonstration. Good point.

        • Mark Chiddicks

          Look at it this way. If there really was a conspiracy to set up Oswald as a patsy who in their right mind would've made a shot from the wrong direction a part of that plan? It would made absolutely no sense! Even is Oswald WERE set up, all the shots would've come from the direction where Oswald was known to be, surely? All the actual evidence supports this, by the way.

  • robertsgt40

    “…though several frames were subsequently damaged.” Oh, really. Damaged. It was a 8mm film. The “damage” is really a deletion.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      Obeys all the laws of physics and behaves exactly as it would with a shot from behind. Look up Penn and teller's demonstration on youtube, 100% conclusive

      • robertsgt40

        LMFAO. You rely on Penn and Teller for your physics lesson? I can tell you from my experience in Vietnam, that ain't the way it works. The back half of a skull doesn't blow out from the rear. Small hole in, big hole out. Do the math. Let's hear them weigh in on Bldg 7 collapse.

        • ace

          there was a small hole in the back of his head and a large exit wound to the right front of his head. these are well documented in the autopsy photos. you also can clearly see a massive explosion of blood and brain matter outward from the front right of his head in the zapruder film. whether it's demonstrated by penn & teller or the world's leading expert on headshots, if you shoot a melon with a rifle, the bullet does not PUSH it, it goes right through it. as the goo exits the other side, the melon is propelled toward you, not in the direction the bullet went. this is exactly what kennedy's head did.

          • robertsgt40

            You have it bass ackwards. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all of the time. I never debate someone who is willfuly ignorance. They tend to support the falsehoods from those who plan to enslave them.(cognitive dissonance) There's no fixing that.

          • ace

            WATCH THE VIDEO. if you shoot a melon it doesn't fly away from you, it flies toward you. you're the one who has that backwards. a bullet doesn't PUSH something as fragile as a skull, it goes right through it.

          • robertsgt40

            If you're good with the official narrative go with it

        • Mark Chiddicks

          Why do you think you are disagreeing with me? What you are saying is EXACTLY what I am saying. Penn and Teller demonstrated exactly what you are claiming. Try reading a bit more carefully!

          • robertsgt40

            The only thing I'm saying is he wasn't shot ONLY from behind.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            All the forensic evidence disagrees with you

          • robertsgt40

            ALL that “evidence” is part of the official narrative, and subsequent whitewhashing(Warren Commision). Not that your govt would ever lie to you. I've been involved in the lies first hand, ie, Vietnam. If you believe it, go with it. I don't.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            You think every single witness, every single doctor, every single police officer is part of a conspiracy. That's frankly barking mad. As I have said elsewhere, ‘the government’ is not a single monolithic entity, it is utterly impossible to get the number of people that would need to be involved to all work towards the same criminal ends. it couldn't and didn't happen. the kind of conspiracy necessary here is just impossible – they don't and can't happen – people aren't that competent.

          • robertsgt40

            Yep. Sht just happens in your mind. Next, RFK is assasinated. I'm sure they got to the bottom of that one. And JFK Jr's plane just blew up. And if you go back to WWII, Joe Kennedy Jr's bomber just blew up. You are living proof of cognitive dissonance. You can't think critically for yourself, so you swallow what you've been fed, no questions asked. I doubt you have questioned much of anything you've been fed. “We find it alarming that intelligent young people setting out to study evidence-based subjects should be perfectly willing to admit to not accepting a major theory in science, not on the basis of a consideration of the evidence, but because of an inculcated belief.” — Professor Roger Downie

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Yes, of course shit just happens. That's the world. RFK's assassin was caught red-handed in front of dozens of witnesses and why the hell would ANYONE want to kill JFK Jr., who was just a magazine publisher? I am afraid its you that isn't thinking critically. You believe in impossibly complex conspiracy plots which make no sense in the first place (e.g. why the hell would you try to set up Oswald by shooting from an entirely different direction?). We know lone nuts assassinate people – Garfield, McKinley, Rabin, Lennon, Versace, Mhatma Gandhi, Reagan (attempt) – assassinations by conspiracy are rarer – Lincoln, Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand, Rajiv and Indira Gandhi – the point being its perfectly believable that Oswald acted alone, and the total lack of evidence of any other conspirator make sit almost certain

          • robertsgt40

            Why would anyone want to kill JFK Jr.? He ruffled Israel's feather by doing articles about what's going on in Palestine. He also had good suppost for run in politics. RFK was on the road to be the next prez. He was going to reopen investigation into assassination of JFK. Can't have that. JFK was going to disband the CIA, had issued order to remove all troops from Vietnam by 1965. He was adament Israel not get nukes. He was in the process of getting rid of the Fed. And you believe a “lone nut” did it. Geez. I've researched this for 30yrs. Your knowledge of actual history is nil. Follow the govt and you will be following the lie. Remember Iraq's WMD's. BTW, Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were killed by the same financial interests that took out JFK. They also attempted to take out Andrew Jackson. Your problem is you can't expand your mind enough to see how badly you've been lied to. Unfortunately, you are backing those who would reduce you to a serf. Sad. Question nothing. No nothing.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Its really tragic that you'd wasted so long chasing ghosts. The kind of conspiracy you have convinced yourself is everywhere is actually completely impossible. The ‘government’ isn't a single entity with a single purpose, its thousands of people screwing each other over for position. I neither trust nor don't trust ‘the government’ because there is no such thing – I trust or distrust individuals, and above all I don't for a millisecond believe any government is competent enough to organise a 50 year cover up. Lincoln was killed by ‘financial interests’ ? Oh for the love of sanity! You genuinely do believe every event ever was part of the same conspiracy, don't you? Have you ever been tested for paranoid schizophrenia? I'm serious about that, you seem to have classic symptoms.

          • robertsgt40

            “Falsification of history has done more to impede human development that any single thing known to mankind”–Rousseau-18th century writer. That you chose to live your life in the dark doesn't change the facts on the ground. You familiar with the Gulf of Tonkn Incident or the USS Liberty? Lavon Affair? Have you ever been tested for an IQ above ambiet?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            How do you know Rousseau wrote that? Maybe it was faked by J Edgar Hoover? How do you even know there WAS an 18th century? The thing is, its obvious from outside your head that you swallow hook line and sinker every single claim made by people you happen to agree with, and disbelieve absolutely everything else, no matter how much evidence there is. I can understand it all looks real to you, but that doesn't make it so. I think you are ill.

          • robertsgt40

            Look it up dumba$$

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Oh good. Abuse. the sign of a well thought out position. I am not insulting you, I genuinely believe you are clinically paranoid. You believe in the absolutely impossible, completely.

          • robertsgt40

            And you believe in the “Truth” as fed to you. Yep. All good. Just don't question anything your told. Everything will just be fine.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            No – that's not remotely the way I am. I take each piece of information on its own and judge whether its trustworthy or not. Information from those who believe passionately in conspiracy is, as it turns out, almost always extremely untrustworthy and impossible to back up. Just because my conclusions are different to yours does not mean I believe everything I am told by ‘government’ without question. On the other hand it appears that you believe every single conspiracy theory without question – that you believe Lincoln was killed by ‘financial interests’ instead of a small cabal of disaffected Southerners tells me that – that's just about the dingle most stupid conspiracy theory in the history of stupid,.

          • robertsgt40

            Just curious if you ever read “1984” or “Animal Farm” or “Brave New World”? Or is that ancient history for you? Do you even know about the subjects discussed? Thoughts?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            All 3 of those books are allegorical fiction, largely of an anti-communist nature. they aren't history and neither Orwell or Huxley was a believer in conspiracy. 1984 was not about a secret cabal running the world you know, it was about an openly operating totalitarian state

          • robertsgt40

            And you don't see any “totalitarian” tendencies here? Wow. You are dense.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            No, you are paranoid. You are under absolutely no risk of a totalitarian government. It exists entirely within your mind – its not real. You can't get totalitarianism without widespread popular support – Lenin and Hitler didn't take power by stealth, they did it by popular acclaim and pretty much immediately abolished democracy as soon as possible – nobody is going to do that in the USA.

          • robertsgt40

            You're right. You can't get “totalitarian” without “widespred support”. It will come from idiots like you. BTW, we weren't founded on “democratic” principles. The US was founded as a constitutional republic. That you don't understand the difference is clear.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Oh for God's sake. The USA is a democracy. Its also a constitutional republic. A democracy is any form of government that can be changed by the votes of the people, as yours can be and is. Representative democracy is the only form of democracy used to run countries anywhere in the world – there are no ‘pure’ democracies. Your republic is one of many forms of representative democracy on the planet. the Constitution limits the powers of government, but the Constitution can be, and has been changed by democratic means. Its hard to believe people are actually dumb enough to have bought this idea that a republic is not ALSO a democracy.

          • robertsgt40

            You may want to research on your own, what the founding faathers said about “democracies”. You're absolutely clueless to the term.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Crap – total festering ignorant crap. there are ZERO direct democracies on the planet, almost every single one is a Constitutional Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy. When people say ‘democracy’ THATS what they are referring to. The English language moves with the times and all sane people are perfectly aware that the USA is a democracy with a specific form of government. The meaning of the word in 1776 was a little different, because there were few if any properly representative democracies on the planet at the time (and the USA didn't become one for a long time as only free white men could vote)

          • robertsgt40

            Find the term “democracy” in the Constitution and send it to me. Bottom line, I'm perfectly willing to let you wander through life rolling in your ignorance. Enjoy the “freedoms” you think you have. The herd will be culled. You will be front and center.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Who gives a damn if it ‘says’ democracy? It still describes one. It doesn't specifically say its OK to keep slaves either, but it still allowed it.
            I have freedom – freedom of speech, conscience, association, movement and, unlike you, freedom from fear.
            The only people I fear are those like you, I fear that one day one of your imaginary enemies might be me.
            You are labouring under the mistaken idea that the world is the USA by the way – I'm not American and never claimed to be. I live in one of those oh so terrible liberal socialist nations your ilk are so scared of being like, and its probably the furthest from totalitarianism that humanity has ever lived.

          • robertsgt40

            You're right. “Who gives a damn if it ‘says’ democracy?” I'm guessing you never put on a uniform or went to war either. You're stuck somewhere that doesn't have a 2nd Amendment. Do the rest of us a favor, stay there. Sounds like you're from the UK. Lotta good people there. Too bad they're unarmed. BTW, what bastion of “democracy” are you from?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            I don't think you can actually read properly.
            It doesn't need to use the WORD democracy to describe a democracy – which it does.
            Sure, most countries don't have the equivalent of a 2nd amendment, but that's basically because no such amendment is needed in a country where there is no tradition of personal ownership of firearms for self defence or the formation of militias. The British haven't been forcibly disarmed, they had almost no guns in the first place, and all but a tiny minority have absolutely no desire to own them. That's tiny minority was disarmed, because people have a right to choose to live in safety. There have been absolutely zero negative consequences to this
            I was brought up in the UK, in peace and freedom, I moved elsewhere, due to marriage and still live in peace and freedom. I'm sorry that the fact my country didn't manage to start any major wars while I was young enough to be called up to fight annoys you, I happen to think that's a GOOD thing.

          • robertsgt40

            Cat got your tongue?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            So I want totalitarianism because I don't accept your conclusions?
            I don't support any politician who thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to hold those views or vote accordingly, so how exactly am I supporting totalitarianism. You really are as mad as a hatter.

          • robertsgt40

            You will support totalitarianism by default. You won't seek any other answer that conflicts with your twisted reasoning. You don't know any better and will stay that way at all costs.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Thats 100% yourself you are describing.

          • robertsgt40

            Look who's still armed. You're stuck in some (unnamed)hut unable to defend your family. Not that you would if you could.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            You fantasise you could defend your family, but it makes no sense in the context of your own beliefs. You are convinced in the existence of a powerful and widespread conspiracy capable of killing presidents and getting away with it. if ‘they’ existed (and they don't) and ‘they’ wanted you dead, you'd be dead without even being aware it was coming. The fundamental inconsistency of your worldview is obvious from the outside. As for myself, I life a life free of fear with no reason to be armed because I know nobody is going to attack me.

          • robertsgt40

            It's fools like you that grow up on a tiny island that have your mental(most likely physical also) growth stunted. Growing up under the grace of a queen kept you from being free. In 1776 we stopped your king in his tracks. You will never have known freedom. What little freedoms you may have left can be taken on a whim. And you can't do squat. It's been bred out of you centuries ago.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            I don't know what freedoms you imagine I don't have. I have freedom of expression, association, conscience, speech and movement. I am allowed to own a gun, but have no desire whatsoever to do so and no use for one. Your last post shows you haven't got the slightest clue about the effect the monarchy has on British life (answer, virtually none). This seems pointless because not only are you not listening, you are incapable of listening, but I'll point out to you that the fall of the Berlin Wall to an unarmed crowd proved how unnecessary guns are if you want to remove a government – you just need the people to actually want to be rid of it. On the other hand when people have tried to resist the US government with guns, they failed – even the entirety of the Confederacy couldn't win, what the hell makes you imagine that the minority of people opposed to the totalitarian state that you have already admitted needs majority support to happen could ever do against a government armed with drones and tanks and missiles. You would last 5 minutes, if that.

          • robertsgt40

            ” I am allowed to own a gun, but have no desire whatsoever to do so but have no desire whatsoever to do so”. Sounds more like you live on a kibbutz. Your monarchy is allowed to remain so the serfs have something to dream back on. They run nothing but drain untold millions from the treasury. The subjects just stand back and take it. The deballed monarchy knows who call the shots, the moneychangers. It's a problem that's plagued mankind for the last couple thousand years+. What your myopic mind can't see is this is by no means over. You will live to see the day you wish you were armed.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Yes, you actually are a Nazi, aren't you! Tell me, do Jews have tails, or do they just drink the blood of Gentile babies?

            Please, get help

          • robertsgt40

            Good luck Marky Ann. You can always hide behind your wife's skirt when the time comes

          • Basil Zangare

            You all should ask yourselves this question, which are facts. I was a United States Marine and qualified as an Expert Rifleman several times, I also was a scout sniper. Oswald has scorecards showing that he barely qualified as a Marksman, which is the most bottom tier of a Marine Shooter. How could he miss a stationary target like General Edwin Walker at less than a 100 feet, But yet Oswald can hit Kennerdy a moving target at 240 and 265 feet? Another question is how could Oswald possibly been up on the 6th floor @ 12:30 prepared to take that first shot, when reports of seeing him on the first and second floor eating lunch and reading a newspaper at 11:50. There was also a report of someone else on the 6th floor eating his lunch at 12:10. Someone would have seen him going to the 6th floor between 11:55 and 12:20. How would Oswald have snuck up there, retrieved the rifle, gotten mentally and physically prepared to take the 3 shots that were fired? Immediately 90 seconds after the shots were fired a Policeman drew his gun at Oswald on the second floor, with Oswalds supervisor. The officer was told that Oswald was an employee. As a sniper myself, I am amazed how this man could have fired a bolt fired rifle in less than 6 seconds at a further distance than his previous attempt on Edwin and an as Kennedy was moving with 25 mile per hour winds. As good of a shot as I am, It would be very difficult for me to take those shots and make those hits. I also would not have left any evidence of my weapon or my fired rounds neatly on the floor. I would have at least hidden the weapon on another floor or broken the rifle down and put in a trash can along with my fired shells. Oswald, had a pretty high I.Q. and wasn't dumb by any means. He may have been a bad shot and a little crazy. It sounds to me like he may have had schizophrenia. A schizo wouldn't have had planned that out without covering up all trails and been seen with the time frames. I am still not convinced after seeing the footage and ballistic angles of the shots entering the body that the first two shots were fired from that building or at that elevation. The third shot I am very convinced came from the front and to the right of Kennedy's car with the way of the impact of the blood splatter and body jerked back and to the left. LBJ, had a lot to gain from his death. The CIA, would have done it because they were mad at the comment that was made at the CIA after he was embarrassed about the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The Mafia was possibly involved because of their dealing with the CIA during the Operation and the fact that Bobby Kennedy was cracking down on organized crime. J. Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI and could have controlled all aspects of the investigation for L.B.J. and the CIA. Another fascinating point or coincidence is that James Braden was arrested on the third floor of the Del Tex building where the first two shots could have been fired from to meet with E. Howard Hunt, Oil Company Billionaire, but yet claimed he was there to meet with Hunt before the assassination, but didn't get a chance to and went back into the building to use a phone after Kennedy was killed. And how was it that James Braden worked in new Orleans the same time as Oswald and worked out of the same building that was owned by Mafia Leader, Carlos Marcello. James Braden was released with no evidence that a crime was committed, even though later they found he a previous criminal record tied to the Mafia. He was also detained and question in Los Angeles later when Robert Kennedy was murdered in Los Angeles. Coincidence or Conspiracy? All of these facts are true according to Wikipedia and the footage and my personal experience as a Expert Rifleman. The only thing you may consider as being my opinion of the footage of the video. The distance and time frame that the shots could have been fired with the current weather conditions and being a bad marksman were impossible for Oswald. Why was James Braden visiting with Jack Ruby the night before Kennedy's death at his Club? Why did Jack Ruby kill Oswald? Jack Ruby visited Joseph Campisi at his restaurant in Dallas. Joseph Campisi was a Lieutenant for Carlos Marcello. Again, Coincidence or Assassination?

          • robertsgt40

            Good to see not exeryone has abandoned critical thinking. I qualified expert in the army before being shipped to Vietnam to hone my craft. I stood in the spot Oswald was supposed to make his shots at the book depository. Ain't no fkg way. In addition, there were no fingerprints on the rifle and he tested hegative for nitrates(powder residue). Just curious where he was supposed to sight-in his mail order weapon? The blind will always take the path of least resistance, following the official story.

          • Nominay

            So you don't either trust or not trust the CIA and NSA, just individuals? I have no problem saying that I don't trust govt agencies. That includes the FBI, hell, even the FDA.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            And that is paranoia. Its a medical condition

          • Nominay

            Yeah, Sirhan was caught red-handed firing bullets with a gun, but how can you explain 11 shots from an 8 shot revolver?

          • Mark Chiddicks

            11 is the maximum number of possible shots from a very low quality audio recording. there is no other evidence of that many shots, and its very likely some of the sounds are not shots. It is Very unlikely that such a recording would only contain actual shots – 11 is a maximum, not a minimum. The explanation is there were not 11 shots at all and some of the sounds are not shots

          • Mya View

            Every single doctor? What about the three doctors and the nurse from Parkland in Dallas who said they don't believe the “official narrative” based on what they saw when they examined Kennedy?

  • rhinojos

    So when does this guy jump out his hotel window or commit suicide?

  • Alonso Schneeweiss

    Hey, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there were TWO lone nuts in Dealy Plaza that day! I mean, hey – it could happen, right?

  • Doofer

    Oswald did not fire a rifle that day. Gunpowder tests on his cheek were clear. His hands had traces of gunpowder on the palms consistent with handling something with gunpowder (shell casings, see James Files statement) but not firing a weapon.
    “Go back to sleep America.You are free………….to do as we tell you”

    • ace

      You wouldn't get gun powder on your cheek from firing a rifle, so it would make sense that he had none on his cheek. The cartridge is sealed into the chamber by the bolt of the rifle closing behind it. Upon firing the cartridge case expands even more inside the chamber, completely filling it and preventing any nitrate gases from escaping onto the face. The fact that he didn't have gunpowder on his face means nothing, but the fact that he DID have gunpowder on his hands says it all.
      How can you honestly claim that Oswald merely “handled something with gunpowder” but didn't fire a weapon when 11 witnessed identified him as the man they saw shooting/running away emptying his pistol after shooting officer j.d. tippit shortly after the assassination? Are all of these dallas citizens also part of the conspiracy?
      Would you believe anyone or any piece of evidence that points to oswald's guilt, or just dismiss it as part of the framing/cover-up and continue believing your conspiracy theory?
      He was seen bringing the rifle to work with him, which he claimed was curtain rods, wrapped in paper. He was seen in the window with the rifle by several witnesses who accurately described him to the police. He was the only employee who left the building immediately after the assassination. His rifle that was traced by serial number back to Klein's Sporting Goods who had shipped it to a p.o. box he rented out in his own name, to an alias (A. Hidell) that he carried a fake ID of and that his wife acknowledges was an alias that he used. The rifle had his palm print on it. After being seen shooting Tippet and fleeing the scene on foot, he was seen ducking into the entryway of a store to hide as a police-car drove by, which aroused the suspicion of the store clerk who followed him and watched him run into a movie theater without paying. When the police came to arrest him in the theater he stood up and shouted “It's all over now!”, punched an officer, drew his pistol and attempted to fire it as it was wrestled away from him. Does it really sound like this guy was innocent to you?

      • Doofer

        I'm not saying he wasn't involved but here are too many loose ends with the whole thing, witnesses contradicting the official story (some coming to untimely deaths) and other bizarre occurrences. The issue is as divisive as ever but to me, weighing everything up, I think it's more crazy to believe the official story.

  • sleat

    I can just see it now…”You bunch of looney JFK conspiracy buffs will believe anything…even when the movie producer tells you how the new footage was a hoax on you, and done with special effects….you still believe the official story is crap….loonies, all of you!”

    Sometime in the future when the well-poisoning op is sprung….

  • Mark Chiddicks

    Can anyone explain why, if the government wanted to set it up to look like Lee Harvey Oswald had shot the President from behind and above that they would use a gunman in front of him and low down? You just wouldn't do it like that would you?
    If you want the world to think that a lone nut killed JFK, you'd use one gunman, shooting from the right direction!
    This alone tells me the second gunman/patsy theory is absolute bulldust

  • robertsgt40

    “British haven't been forcibly disarmed…no desire to own them..” Yes, I seem to recall seeing videos of folks protesting the loss of their right to own guns. Good luck getting them back. They warned the US not to turn them in. Similar situation in Austrailia(another former colony). Now you have no ability to defend yourself against criminals breaking into your house or the govt(may be one in the same). You're right about “people have a right to choose to live in safety.” That's why we are the last nation that exercises that right as a free people. You gave up your right to tell the govt “NO”. You are now under their complete control with no means to resist. We kicked the king's arse 200yrs ago because we said NO. Now that the UK is a burned out cinder of an empire, it is just an island and its subjects imprisoned. “I'm sorry that the fact my country didn't manage to start any major wars while I was young enough…”. Correct again. It all started centuries before you were born and ended by losing all its colonies. Hence, just an island adrift. Never did mention what paradise you moved to.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      You ‘seem’ to have seen such things, but you didn't. There was, prior to the mid 80s a right to own small arms and rifles for purposes of sport, but absolutely not for self defence, nobody was ‘disarmed', the British people were never ‘armed’ in the first place. please accept I know MUCH more about Britain than you do, otherwise you'll look even sillier. If you genuinely believe that you a capable of effectively resisting a government that has access to helicopter gunships and tanks you are even more deranged than you appeared to be. You've seen what happens when people attempt to ‘resist the government’ – like at Waco, they die, badly and pointlessly. In 1776 people owned weapons that were basically the same hardware the military had, now the military can kill you from a room thousands of miles away. Really far far better just to live in the real world and understand that the government doesn't have the slightest desire to kill you, but that if it did, there's nothing at all you could do about it. Good God man you believe they managed to assassinate 4 presidents without getting caught – what chance do you have?

      • robertsgt40

        Since you know nothing of our Constitution, let me clarify. The 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
        right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That means the right to bear arms is inherent. Ya know, like God given. It was not about hunting. It was about protecting the individual from external forces…especially the govt. We had experience with one king and didn't need another. That you have checked your ballz or beaver at the door is your choice. That you would not stand up for you God given rights explains your possible exit from the island. I'm not leaving. “Live free or die” won't come from you. You lack cajones. What paradise do you live in again?

        • Mark Chiddicks

          I know what your constitution SAYS, but just saying that something is inherent doesn't make it so. That's just an opinion which lots of people disagree with. Given that the men who wrote your Constitution thought owning other human beings was OK excuse me for not considering them to have any great moral authority.
          Please spare the rest of us from your tedious American exceptionalism.

          • robertsgt40

            I don't believe in American exceptionalism. I don't support anything my govt does outside the expressed authority in the CONSTITUTION. The Constitution is centered in the Bill of Rights. They are centered as to protect the individual from the herd and govt. You probably need to read the Bill of Rights(especially the 2nd Amendment) It is not an “opinion”. It's law. “..the men who wrote your Constitution thought owning other human beings was OK..” And England had colonies. Tell me the difference.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            You struggle to comprehend other people, don't you? Of course its law, but its only an opinion that its ‘inherent’ and its one I disagree with. The difference between England and the USA is that the English don't think that the men who ruled in 1776 were worth following today, for some incomprehensible reason you do – despite the fact that the much vaunted Constitution couldn't even hold the nation together for a century before half of you had to force the other half to stay in the union at the cost of half a million dead. In the meantime you wiped out virtually all the native Americans and kept another race enslaved – slavery that outlasted slavery in the British Empire by 60 years. I wouldn't wipe my backside with your Constitution, it lead to at least a century of some of the worst and cruellest government in human history.

          • robertsgt40

            More ignorance on your part. The war of northern aggression(officially know as the civil war) was foisted on the US by your buddies the Rothschilds thru your Bank of England. Who do you think finances ALL the wars of major importance for over 200yrs? Think Napoleon forward. Europe was already awash in usury thru the Rothschilds. Our Constitution made the US govt the head of banking. The First and Second Banks of the United States were Rothschild enterprises. Both were repelled. Not until the Federal Reserve Act(1913) did they succeed in subjugating the citizenry into monetary slavery which has bankrupted the US just like the rest of Europe. You can disagree all as the difference between opiniuon and law. I don't care. It's not until my INDIVIDUAL rights are violated that I take exception. And you have the ballz to talk about enslavement. How many colonies did England enslave and extract resources to take back to England? Our revoluntioary war, that thru your king out, was about destroying our existing monetary system and installing your precious pound(depreciating the currency 50%). BTW, I'm a big fan of William Wallace.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Ok – proof you are a fruit loop. All of history is the Rothschild's master plan, Thats an extreme right wing theory, common amongst neo-Nazis – are you one?

          • robertsgt40

            Yeah, the Rothschilds inherited the BoE. Study up on what happened after Waterloo. They stole your banking and markets. No wonder you left town. In addition to being intellectually illiterate, you've loered yourself to name calling. What a dumda$$

          • Mark Chiddicks

            I hope you get the medical treatment you need, really.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Had to respond to your genius here. I ask, in all seriousness, if your belief in a central pillar of Nazi thought (the international Jewish banking conspiracy) means you are a neo-Nazi, you say that this is name calling, which proves my lack of intellect, and then ACTUALLY CALL ME NAMES which surely proves yours?

          • robertsgt40

            You truly are a joke. The term neo-Nazi has been manufactured for dolts like you to throw around when they have no critical thinking skills to drive them towards the truth. Just another lemming hoping his govt will protect him from evil doers who are actually working hand in hand with your govt. The threat to all individual freedoms begins within people's govt(including yours/mine). Ya know, the one that has your best interest at heart. The main difference between you and me is I actually have a physical say in my freedom when push comes to shove. You don't

          • Mark Chiddicks

            You seen incapable of processing anything that is said to you, you certainly never respond to any actual points. I will say it again, how is it possible for you to resists a government that you believe to be capable of assassinating presidents and getting away with it? If this were true, and they wanted to get rid of you, you'd be dead without even knowing it was coming. Your ‘solution’ is laughably inadequate for the ‘problem’ you imagine. You are the poster child for the “I need my guns to stop them taking away my guns” attitude, which is obvious insanity.

          • robertsgt40

            I have been to war. You have not. You will go willingly on your knees. I will not. “Live free or die” is a term that is Greek to you. You will never get it

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Also, push is never going to come to shove. Its all in your head.

          • robertsgt40

            All men's knowledge is based on his perceptions. You've been deceived and will never know the truth. You don't want to know it. You can't handle it. You think the world is on cruise control and everything will be just fine. It is not and it won't be until people stand up. You're betting someone else will protect you. They will not

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            Here it is 2013 more than 200 years later, yet you still don't have a Bill of Rights in the UK.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Which pretty much proves to me that no such thing is necessary. Whatever you might imagine, Britain is a free country.

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            What a joke. So anyone can become the king or queen?

            The citizens the UK do not free to speak freely as their defamation laws amply prove.

            They are not free to carry a pistol to protect themselves if they so desire.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            Defamation laws? You mean civil law, exactly as it is in the USA, making slander and libel illegal – as they are for you?

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            No the defamation laws are not the same even though they have the same name. Although the defamation laws have been improved in the UK this year, they still aren't like the US.

            Furthermore, NO law in the UK can go into effect unless and until the queen or king signs on. IOW, they have veto power.

            You might argue they are a rubber stamp, but the fact is it can put a chilling effect on the bills that are introduced.

            You are also a Subject. Subjects are not free. There are no Subjects to an American king or queen in the US.

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            Slavery was legal UNTIL the Constitution was amended. Then it became illegal. The second amendment has not been so stricken.

            See…built into the Constitution was the ability to change the Constitution, which has been done numerous times. That's the way our form of government is supposed to work.

            The people are smart enough not to touch the 2nd amendment. They were also smart enough to end slavery.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            You are supporting my point that rights are not ‘inherent'. If there were any inherent, inalienable rights in the Constitution you wouldn't be able to amend them, but you can which means they are just a matter of opinion. If the opinion changes, as it did with slavery, your rights will change.

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            Sorry, but I didn't comment on your assertion regarding “inherent.”

            I commented on your disparaging remarks regarding the Constitution's handling of slavery. Almost the entire world, maybe all of it allowed slavery when the Constitution was written. The remarkable thing about the Constitution is that it was ratified at all, considering how radical it was at the time.

            We have certain inalienable rights which are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a founding document. So no not everything is up for grabs.

            The notion that the wisdom of the Constitution is somehow made null and void by the ability to amend the Constitution if certain is plainly silly.

            The Constitution can be changed The requirements to do that are quite high.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. anything in that that isn't also in the constitution isn't law. I certainly don't think the Constitution is ‘null and void', but nor is it, does it, as some claims embody self-evident (terrible lazy phrase that) and inalienable rights, its just a reasonably good set of opinions, some of which are anachronisms that you are unfortunately stuck with (the reasons given for the Right to Bear Arms are obviously no longer applicable, for example, but you're stuck with the consequences of that outdated view)

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            FAIL. Both the DOI and the Federalist papers are researched and referred to by our Justices to determine the meaning in the Constitution. But as a foreigner maybe you should be forgiven for your ignorance which is amply evident in regards to that point and the rest of your drivel.

            Once again., if the 2nd amendment were no longer relevant, then that amendment could be amended. But those of us who actually understand its vital importance and present day applicability will be keeping it in place, thank you very much.

            The folks of the USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia, etc, all found out what losing the right to bear arms entails.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            What on Earth makes you imagine that the Chinese lost a ‘right to bear arms'? They had a massive civil war which was not between 2 large standing armies.

          • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

            Mao disarmed them AFTER the civil war.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      If I told you where I lived you'd start spouting claptrap about another place you know nothing about, I'd rather not afford you that opportunity.

      • robertsgt40

        You spewed crap about the US and have never lived here. You must be proud of your new homeland. Especially if your wife got you to leave merry ‘ol England.

        • Mark Chiddicks

          I know an AWFUL lot more about America than you do about the UK, you've already made that obvious.

          • robertsgt40

            At least I didn't turn tail and desert. But then officially you're no longer a POME. LMAO Doesn't make any difference what you know. You're a man w/o a country.

          • Mark Chiddicks

            I didn't ‘desert’ anything you idiot. I moved to my wife's home country and had children here. Unlike you I'm not so terrified of the rest of the world that I refuse to leave my home

          • robertsgt40

            Yeah, your new home. Where was that again? I missed it. You must be really proud of your new digs not to mention it. LMFAO

      • robertsgt40

        In addition, I'll tell you I live dead center in Texas for over six decades. We don't consider the federal govt the final voice in our affairs. Now, chirp in about how much you know about Texas.

  • fredjohns

    Someone needs to write the 724th book on the great conspiracy that never existed and get to the bottom of this !

  • Debra Conway

    There are no missing frames from the Zapruder film. The original film was damaged by LIFE magazine but after copies were made. All frames are available and accounted for.

    • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

      There are four frames missing just before JFK temporarily disappears from sight behind the street sign. Most likely, those four frames show Kennedy reacting to the first shot. Evidence of that would put quite a damper in the Warren Commission baloney.

      • Mark Chiddicks

        This really really isn't true. You can find the film frame by frame online and see there is nothing missing. I urge you to do so – try looking for yourself instead of just believing what cranks tell you. Only 2 frames were EVER removed from the Z-film, the moment of the fatal headshot, removed when it was first shown to the public for reasons of sensitivity, these have long since been reinstated. I promise you you have been lied to about this – look for yourself!

    • Grateful_for_The_Atonement

      There is debate over if frames were removed. One copy was taken to DC by went to a “secret” photo lab where frames may have been altered. You have to remember that the gov knows ten years or more before the public gets the same technology. It is quite possible that a new copy was made and the other two copies were exchanged. those who steal the rights from the Constitution do there work and cover their bases. It is just like 9-11; see how the BBC announces Bld 7 had collapsed 15 minutes before it actually did.

  • Laura Phares-Wilson

    I am so sick of “connected” Jews in positions of “Ultimate Manipulation” (and I am a REAL descendant of King David and Judah) “brokering” information that should ABSOLUTELY be exposed to the public without millions of dollars changing hands so that the guilty parties could be prosecuted. I cannot wait until the time when the ABJECTLY STUPID have the truth shoved in their face by a holy creator. Oh, the looks on their faces when they find out that they were manipulated by the children of the adversary, embracing happily the lies, and that they were completely deceived because they were to arrogant to even look at the truth. It is coming and I wait for the judgement of the Most Holy Elohim.

    • Mark Chiddicks

      What a terrifying and barking mad young lady you are

  • farnworthcomputerrepair

    So where is the film? It is friday of the following week now.

    Is this going to be the hoax we all expected it to be?

    • Grateful_for_The_Atonement

      Not a hoax; it appears to have been shut down. Just like the comments below. May God raise up people to save the Constitution. Though; we need to repent as a nation.

  • Steve M

    Any updates on this?

  • ace

    the video you posted is taken from the original copy damaged by life magazine. three copies of the film were made before this damage occurred, so the frames you're talking about aren't missing from all copies of the film. they are available online if you just google image search the frames you would like to see. nothing occurred in these frames that indicate a conspiracy, so even if life magazine were for some reason taking part in the cover-up, it would make no sense for them to damage the frames intentionally on the original.

    • http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/ TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

      I've seen many, many videos from many different sources. Never was there one where the 4 missing frames were presented.

      Your claim that such a video that contains the missing frames is out there, needs to have a link. A mere claim without a source is meaningless.

  • Coyote302

    Now let me get this straight, Oswald shoots the president, and the first thing he does is run down four flights of stairs, and buys a coke. The next thing he does is gets on a bus to make his escape, ( the only assasin in history to use mass transit) and last, but not least he is free to make his escape. But what does he do? He goes to the movies, makes sense to me!!!!!!

  • kent

    I cant belive he was exacuted in cold blood, and his lovely wife by his side trying to pick up the pieces of his scull to put back together and fix her beloved husbands head wound.