Another Zapruder Film Point of Interest

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

The funny part is that no matter how you slice it, JFK is already reacting to his throat and back wound BEFORE Conally is punched in the back by the bullet that hit him.It's plain as day, and lone-nut theorists claim they can't see it.

[ThomZajac]

Yes, and Connally (and his wife) said that he was not struck by the first shot that hit the president.Not to split hairs, but Wim has suggested that the throat wound was a result of the fatal head shot from the front, and that JFK's raised elbows were a reaction to the back wound. (I'm undecided on this point presently).Bottom line though; The Single Bullet Theory is untenable. Therefore, the lone nut theory is also untenable.And yet....

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ThomZajac wrote:Yes, and Connally (and his wife) said that he was not struck by the first shot that hit the president.Not to split hairs, but Wim has suggested that the throat wound was a result of the fatal head shot from the front, and that JFK's raised elbows were a reaction to the back wound. (I'm undecided on this point presently).Bottom line though; The Single Bullet Theory is untenable. Therefore, the lone nut theory is also untenable.And yet....Exactly.I'm still undecided on the throat-wound-being-headshot-shrapnel idea. To me, when JFK raises his arms up, I also see his hands going to his throat, like he's choking on a bullet. Your point is still very valid. The single bullet theory is untenable...or in Pasquale lingo, it's bulls#*%!!!!!

[ThomZajac]

I was tempted, but I'm always hopeful that there will be some visiting the site who haven't yet come to the conspiracy conclusion, and so I subdued my Italian side (Canepa; 'Cultivator of Hemp') and used 'untenable' thinking it might somehow be more persuasive.By the way, here's the missing link-http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304691/pg1

[ThomZajac]

Here's another good link regarding the Zapruder film. The entry from James H. Fetzer dated 3/15/09 discusses the unaltered version.educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14121

[saracarter766]

in the many times i've seen the zapruder film i never knew about this altered theory see why i love this forum so much i have learned a heck of alot sine discovering wim's site.

[ChristophMessner]

I have learned a lot, too, Sara, for example that it is problematic to make a pre-verdict on somebody. More and more I see, that nobody really can take critizism. The first thing is always the accepting of the other as he/she is, asking him/her how he/she sees things, and only then there can be some exchange of opinions with a movability of positions. My impression about James Fetzer's book "The great Zapruder film hoax" was, that his analysis of some alleged film-alterations were a little far-fetched. For me it is visible that back-and-to-the-left is not faked.

[ThomZajac]

ChristophMessner wrote:I have learned a lot, too, Sara, for example that it is problematic to make a pre-verdict on somebody. More and more I see, that nobody really can take critizism. The first thing is always the accepting of the other as he/she is, asking him/her how he/she sees things, and only then there can be some exchange of opinions with a movability of positions. My impression about James Fetzer's book "The great Zapruder film hoax" was, that his analysis of some alleged film-alterations were a little far-fetched. For me it is visible that back-and-to-the-left is not faked.I'm not real up on Fetzer- does he claim that back-and-to-the-left was faked?

[saracarter766]

ChristophMessner wrote:I have learned a lot, too, Sara, for example that it is problematic to make a pre-verdict on somebody. More and more I see, that nobody really can take critizism. The first thing is always the accepting of the other as he/she is, asking him/her how he/she sees things, and only then there can be some exchange of opinions with a movability of positions. My impression about James Fetzer's book "The great Zapruder film hoax" was, that his analysis of some alleged film-alterations were a little far-fetched. For me it is visible that back-and-to-the-left is not faked. wow some nerve there chris and i mean this in the nicest possible way and not in a crude or in a confrontational manner but some nerve.anyway moving on and back to disscussing JFK.

[ChristophMessner]

Thom, I have read that book a couple of months ago, but superficially, and as far as I remember he did not claim that the back-and-to-the-left was manipulated. Sara, thank you for being nice and not confrontational. Yes, moving on! So what do you think about James Fetzer's book? Chris