JFK Assassination Zapruder Stabilized Motion *Panorama*

[NurseJackie]

The Zapruder film of J. F. Kennedy's assassination digitized in astonishing high resolution like no other video on YouTube.

See the following for how it was originally digitized back in 1997 by MPI Home Video:

"MPIs digital restoration of the Zapruder film / how it was done"
https://tinyurl.com/y644eym5

[sandensea]

1. The one thing they didn't count on

Thanks for posting this.

[Turbineguy]

2. The actions of Mrs. Kennedy.

Incredible really.

[hlthe2b]

3. Still one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. And now, more so.

Few saw the Lincoln assassination, but JFK--millions over the years. How could it not have affect our collective "psyche" over these decades? I think my late Mother loved JFK and my Father was probably not a fan, given his family's conservative routes. But honestly, this affected them both. How could it not?

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. I'm 52 years old and never watched the Zapruder film until now.

Definitely one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen.

[ancianita]

4. Thank you. No president has ever ridden with the top down again. And never in Texas.

Oliver Stone made the case in one of my favorite films. He was not wrong.

[Archae]

9. Oliver Stone got two things right in that movie.

JFK was killed and Clay Shaw was tried.

The rest of that movie, including this clip, are total bullshit.

Even that little speech by Costner in the clip never happened.

[ancianita]

11. Nope.

Oliver Stone and Garrison wrote his part of that script together, and he was in Stone's film.

Garrison's investigation again received widespread attention through Oliver Stone's 1991 film, JFK, which was largely based on Garrison's book as well as Jim Marrs' Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. Kevin Costner played a fictionalized version of Garrison in the movie. Garrison himself had a small on-screen role in the film, playing United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.

I was alive, age 17 then. I read the Warren Commission Report, still have it. But it's wrong and Stone is not wrong.

But hey, believe what you want.

[thucythucy]

12. Jim Garrison was a homophobic bigot.

His first theory was that the assassination was a "homosexual thrill murder."

Clay Shaw was a respected New Orleans businessman who was also a closeted gay. He was hounded practically to death by Garrison's out of control obsession with getting media attention. The case went to trial and Shaw was acquitted. He was in the process of suing Garrison for libel when he died of cancer.

"Fictionalized" version of Garrison is right. The whole final scene where Costner gives his speech is entirely made up. Much of the rest of it is bogus as well. And the "gay" party scene looks like one of Mike Pence's anti-gay fever dreams.

I like my conspiracy theories to have at least some basis in fact.

[ancianita]

14. So what. Clay Shaw was his only connection to putting others on trial who simply disappeared,

and were protected by the system from investigation -- the ones who legitimized all that in the Warren Report. Garrison said that and I believe him.

I like that Oliver Stone's frame-by-frame film expertise, and his reading others' basis in fact were made into a movie that reflected my personal knowledge of the South's and Republicans' hatred of JFK, and especially his brother, who figured large in forcing Southern integration. They cheered when both brothers were murdered. That's when I also found out that law enforcement were full of KKK.

All of Garrison's homophobic bigotry and your attack have nothing to do with why Garrison put Clay Shaw on trial. Garrison wanted to try the secrecy of the U.S. government's coverup attempts to put the past into the past.

[Archae]

19. No. Garrison was a corrupt grandstanding district attorney.

He chased down "murder thrill kill rings," that he never could find actual evidence of.

Meanwhile he accepted a lot of money in bribes...err...I mean campaign contributions from mob-connected illegal pinball dealers.

[ancianita]

21. Link all this. Or at least give a book title. I've read none of this.

[thucythucy]

26. I tell you Garrison was a homophobic bigot and you say "So What?"

The fact is Garrison targeted Shaw because Shaw was gay. If Garrison had gone after a Black businessman only because he was Black, would you still say "So What?"

"All of Garrison's homophobic bigotry and your attack have nothing to do with why Garrison put Clay Shaw on trial." So you're saying that the fact that Shaw was gay was just a coincidence?

Garrison produced not one molecule of evidence that Shaw had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination. There was never any "connection" between Shaw and "others on trial who simply disappeared" because there were no "others" put on trial, "disappeared" or otherwise.

Then too Garrison LOST his case against Shaw. A unanimous jury found Shaw innocent of the charges brought by Garrison. Shaw sued him for libel and defamation, but sadly died before the case went to trial.

My favorite bogus scene in "JFK" is when the Ed Asner character, celebrating the day of the assassination, says that this means the end of "Camelot." The idea of the Kennedy administration as a modern day "Camelot" was first used by Jackie in the interview she gave after Thanksgiving, several weeks later. Just one of many details Stone got wrong.

[Archae]

27. "JFK" got everything wrong.

(Ok, he got two things correct, JFK was shot and killed, and Clay Shaw was put on trial.)

Those noble speeches given in court?
Didn't happen.

Garrison's primary witness was a mental patient.

The jury took an hour and half including lunch, to exonerate Clay Shaw.

And Oliver Stone has a habit of making anti-Semitic remarks at times.

[thucythucy]

28. The BBC did an excellent documentary on the assassination

which debunked all the conspiracy theories. I think it was called "Beyond Conspiracy" but I haven't been able to find it on YouTube (which is where I first saw it).

There was an American version of the same name but it wasn't as good.

[Archae]

29. A while back, ABC did an excellent look at it too.

And they used actual SCIENCE, that showed conclusively that Oswald acted alone.

But, just like the current bunch of "QAnon" believers, facts don't mean shit to them, "Because we say so!"
And that's all they have.

[underpants]

6. He was shot from the front.

Probably from the sewer drain opening.

[Auggie]

8. Frontal assault: no doubt about it.

Sewer drain? First time I've heard of this.

[William Seger]

15. Nope. That would defy the laws of physics

Immediately after the impact, JFK's head snapped forward an estimated 2.5". The "back and to the left" motion didn't start until 2 frames later. Whatever caused that motion, it absolutely wasn't the bullet, because it could only exert force on the head for the tiny fraction of a second that it passed through. It was long gone from the scene by the time we see the first post-impact frame, and that frame clearly shows which direction it exerted force. If you must have your conspiracy theories, they will need to include a shot from behind, or they are long since thoroughly debunked. (And anyone who wants to argue about that will need to look elsewhere -- I've long since lost the patience.)

[ancianita]

17. He grabbed his throat, was shot at twice again, two hit him, one in front, one behind, then

one hit Connally. More than one shooter, but the autopsy would not report or reveal more than one caliber bullet. Just the one bullet they found in the car did all that damage, we were told. The magic bullet theory of the Warren Report.

[William Seger]

18. That would be the SINGLE bullet theory in the Warren Report

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who propose bullets doing all sorts of "magical" things, whereas the single bullet theory is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the credible evidence. Even after all the attempts to cast doubt on it, none of the alternative explanations make any sense at all, including the one you mention.

[ancianita]

20. Yep, I read those very words -- single bullet theory. Those who saw the film didn't believe it

and made fun of it, so be aware that you're not correcting me. It's not credible that one bullet could possibly do all that damage.

Not all criticism of coverup or "attempts to cast doubt" on other credible evidence is conspiracy theory when forensics analysts differed about the meaning of the film footage. All kinds of evidence and witnesses are disappeared in different world events; this country is no exception.

I'll let the JFK issues rest, but the larger historical issues remain for many liberals like me, even though we're years past when the sealed archival records were to be released.

Not all traumas are to be historically erased, given "one official explanation," or sealed away.
Minimizing witnessed trauma in those ways is not how a nation heals; those approaches to dealing with the American public shows how much in contempt we've always been held. It's how we got so ignorant of covered up Native American genocide, Black genocide, the war on women, and a really pissed off Millennial generation. If it weren't for forensic archeologists ...
Don't even get me started.

[Quixote1818]

24. There have been several attempts to check into the conspiracy theory's. They don't hold up

[CanonRay]

7. I've always subscribed to the theory that a Secret Service agent accidentally fired the fatal shot

after Oswald had wounded JFK. It would explain the way the USSS agents were acting that day, why the fatal bullet was likely a larger caliber weapon. Watch JFK The Smoking Gun, Mortal Error or Accidental Assassin. I never believed that Oswald could've made all those shots. I tthe only explanation that ever made sense to me.

[lunatica]

10. It's hard to describe what a complete shock that was to all of us.

Now it’s taken for granted that the President is so protected. We were stupidly innocent back then. His assassination broke something in our psyche. It ended our trusting immaturity.

It’s very hard to explain, but the effect was profound.

[turbinetree]

13. I can still remember where I was, in Merced CA, grade school having lunch and then being

told to go home..................and then going home and seeing my mother crying and my step father going into alert status and then watching this nation go into shock and grief to witness the absolute pain and shock.....................and 57 odd years later I still grieve ....................

[ancianita]

16. Me, too. I was in high school gym class, many weeping, a few were hysterical, school was dismissed.

My eyes were glued to TV news every day after that. I witnessed Jack Ruby's shooting of the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.

The state funeral was one for the ages. I wept all day. For years after those days, I knew this nation's innocence was gone, and that it kept so much darkness hidden within it. TV news was eyewitness news back then. That's when I channeled grief, decided to read other histories besides the 'great man' ones in school, Howard Zinn, Latino, Native American and Black histories.

While I and my officer husband were dealing with the Vietnam War afterward, I never again trusted leaders' official stories, read all the underground fact-based material I could find, studied how the military worked and thought. I got politicized.

[Lord Ludd]

23. I was the only member of my family watching TV when Ruby shot Oswald

but have no memory of what I did afterward.

The only images I remember of the funeral are of Blackjack, the riderless horse in the procession. He was bucking as though he could sense the anger & sadness around him.

[oswaldactedalone]

22. Sorry folks

but Oswald acted alone.

[Quixote1818]

25. Agree 10000%. nt