Undeniable evidence JFK killed by 2nd shooter

Post Reply New Topic

Frame 313 of the Zapruda film shows what looks like a lightning bolt strikes JFK’s head. We see it blown up and thrown back. Jackie frantically crawls over the rear seat of the open car and climbs onto its rear deck (note if the bullet was from the book depository then the splatter would be all over the windscreen) she was grasping at something that has been described as a piece of her husband’s shattered skull. The visceral impression that the blast came from in front of JFK and blew his head backward is powerful. The best arguments against this is that this is some kind of optical illusion .
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... -us-14194/

If somebody would like to explain how that works? especially since there are doctors who are testifying under oath the bullet entered from the front?

That's what he said. That they were doctored.

Do you have a link to the original?

The one I watched lately was so clear and slow motion, I'm pretty sure the fragment can be seen traveling from his head to the back of the car. The thing I keep in mind is the car was moving. Which means something that went up, could land in back. Like if you were driving a convertible and threw a cup up in the air. Also if the driver hit the accelerator, that could have caused JFK's head to snap back. I'm not against the idea of a grassy knoll shooter. But In my opinion from what I've seen, the head shot came from behind. Lot's of people agree with me and lots don't. But if the film was edited as the ex government employee in that youtube video you posted says, then what everyone is seeing is inaccurate.

The guy in the youtube video you posted said the original Zapruder film taken out of the camera is locked away somewhere. He starts talking about it at 8:30 / 10:45.

That's probably true, these videos are not the same as the one I saw back in the '90s, in terms of you see a lot more now than you did then. You could still tell that he was hit from behind because of the asymmetries related to the head. But, with less detail. There was a lot of jitter in those frames, so I don't know if that's where most of the extra detail is coming from. Video cameras of the day were film, so better scans and better efforts to line up the frames probably could account for a bunch of the improved detail as long as it wasn't too out of focus.

,
My earliest memory of the Zapruda film from the 90s shows exactly the same visual event with the headshot impact from the front, it's kind of seared in my long term memory. Conspiracies within conspiracies? so the original film is now doctored and therefore no longer evidence?

I'll still go with the testimonies made under oath. Here's an image of what the alleged assassin would have seen from behind the fence on the grassy knoll


the trajectory and angle makes sense from where JKF was hit if the shooter fired from this spot, it was an ideal spot as the assassin could slip away behind the train tracks. On the other hand the book depository required a sharp shooter with a proper line of sight and Oswald was not a trained sniper, using an unsuitable weapon and from a difficult position.

There is no version of that film where the shot is from the front. We know this because the exit wound is on the front. There are rather gory pictures of the wounds from the morgue online, I'm not going to link to them because it's a pretty clear forum policy violation, but it's pretty clear that the exit wound is to the front.

Lee Oswald was former USMC, he had plenty of training to do what he did. He main not have been a "sniper" but you think the USMC doesn't train people on how to use rifles? According to his records, he scored high enough to be designated as a sharpshooter. So, while this wasn't an easy shot, especially with that rifle, it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility for him to have taken the shots on his own.

I'd like to focus on this specific claim for a moment. What exactly makes the Carcano Model 38 poorly suited?

The cartridge itself is accurate and has a flat trajectory, as well as a tendency to tumble after striking.

The rifle is generally considered reasonably accurate and well-made. It's iron sights wouldn't have been of much use (they're sighted for 200 meters), but why would we assume Oswald wouldn't be able to compensate (supposing he used them, rather than the scope). If he used the scope he could have it sighted appropriately for the shorter range required.

So, what exactly makes the Carcano unsuitable for taking a person at 100 meters?

According to wiki, he was designated as a sharpshooter in 1956, but only a marksman in 1959. The lower rating might reflect apathy/lack of effort rather than lack of skill though.



Regardless:



He likely had the skill to make the shot.

Wait? are we seeing the same video? everyone I know who has watched the Zapruda film says virtually the same thing, the kill shot on the Zapruda film "appears" to impact from the front. It must be apparent because even the sceptics also say its an "optical illusion" because of the volume of people who are seeing what I am seeing.

I don't know? At the end of the day was Oswald really a lone gunman? I've watched several documentaries on him over thee years, and the level of good luck he appeared to have in the book depository being vacant at the very moment Kennedy's cavalcade passed, plus he reasoning is all over the place, Nothing makes sense.

I'm not a gun expert but it seems an odd choice for assassinating somebody. Was Oswald hard of cash and this was the cheapest option? I acknowledge it was equipped with a scope but Kennedy's cavalcade was a moving target (not stationary) so he's very skilled and must have had pinpoint accuracy. Remember the rifle is loaded with 6 shots before needing reloading so Oswald stopped at third. Also odd how he was walking around with a rifle and a revolver and nobody thought it was odd?

It seems like a pretty decent choice. They were cheap, surplus Italian military rifles that were widely available in North America during that period. Nowadays the equivalent is probably the SKS.

Oswald had the rifle concealed by wrapping it in paper. A coworker at the Texas School Book Depository asked about it at 7:23 am and Oswald claimed it was curtains*.

CD, I chose to ask about the rifle specifically as it's a low-hanging fruit example of you just bullshitting and hoping no one would notice. There's zero reason to describe the rifle as poorly suited for the task, but you did. If you did even basic research you'd know that it's perfectly adequate for shooting someone 100 meters away.

Your question here about no one thinking it odd that he was "walking around with a rifle" is another example of not doing even the basic research before asking questions. He wasn't openly brandishing a rifle, he concealed it.

Why not do some basic research of easily answered questions instead of throwing them out like red herrings? Might it be because the red herrings help generate an atmosphere of skepticism while answering them for yourself would interfere with attempting to create that atmosphere?

It's very Glenn Beck-esque.

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... n-timeline

^^^ Fair enough, my knowledge of guns is only based on what I read so I am happy to be educated.

I agree with the Warren Commission that Oswald got three shots and at least one of them hit Kennedy. No problems there. I think where I am stuck (and perhaps half of America and the congressional hearings currently taking place agree with me on this) is the bullet that resulted in the kill shot coming from Oswald's rifle. My eyes don't deceive me and the Zapruda film, in combination with eyewitness statements, observations from the grassy knoll, reports from the medical doctors all seem pretty convincing to me that at the very least there is some (alot actually) of doubt.

At the end of the day there's lots of evidence that Oswald was the shooter. A second shooter has always been a matter of speculation and hearsay. With multiple scenarios presented as to who it was including the limo driver, Connally and Jackie. My favorite one is the head shot came from a secret service agent who accidently discharged his weapon. There's at least one book about it called "Mortal Error". That one seems the most plausible and explains a lot regarding what happened afterwards.

Last edited by Retrograde on 30 May 2025, 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.