Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Can someone ID this piece of film? I've never seen it. (I just took a couple of frames out of it - it's about a 30 second clip, or less...) Edited June 28, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Glenn, That's a re-creation that was done for a movie. (Probably for Oliver Stone's fantasy film in 1991.) Another pretty good re-creation of the assassination was done in 1977 for the TV movie "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (the one with Lorne Greene, Ben Gazzara, and John Pleshette [Pleshette playing Oswald]).... Edited June 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Schmidt Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Might be from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsGadVLfzkc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 no, not that one. it looks like it's really from the time period. i'll snip a clip out of it and post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) I'm pretty sure it's from Oliver Stone's movie. He made everything look old and grainy for his '91 film. He did quite a remarkable job at doing that, too. The clip Brian linked to is from the same 1977 TV movie I presented above. Edited June 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Glenn, That's a re-creation that was done for a movie. (Probably for Oliver Stone's fantasy film in 1991.) ... a "fantasy film" that has kept nutters and trolls running in circles for 25 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Try WCD298 for the FBI's account of what happened... they used all the available evidence, surveys of DP and precise measurements... https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699 You want to see tortured and twisted... DVP explaining this should be a treat http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm was the man who put the model together... and delivered it to the WC in early January 1964... Please notice where that last shot hits.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 interesting - may I try to understand this...? they're saying that shot 3 was fired at Frame 375? that 2 was at 313? and that far lamp post would have been in frame 375, only in reality it had already come and gone, right? i have noted that DVP is curiously silent on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Glenn,That obviously was a fairly early evaluation (and OPINION) concerning the timing of the three shots, which was put together for the Warren Commission shortly after the WC began doing its work on the case. And the timing of the shots as seen in that FBI report (CD298) is quite clearly in error. The last shot is now widely believed to be the head shot, which is quite clearly occurring at Z313. Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Glenn, That obviously was a fairly early evaluation (and OPINION) concerning the timing of the three shots, which was put together for the Warren Commission shortly after the WC began doing its work on the case. And the timing of the shots as seen in that FBI report (CD298) is quite clearly in error. The last shot is now widely believed to be the head shot, which is quite clearly occurring at Z313. with some many "errors" one might ask why on earth believe the 1964 WCR under *any* circumstance... Perfidy comes to mind! Both the FBI/SS recreation with and without use of Z-film frames as a guide! Dance on young man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) That Clip though it appeared in the Stone Movie JFK, was used by Stone but not filmed by him. Nobody in the research community is able to track down the origin of that Clip, yet. Who made it, when, for what purpose? It is a pretty sophisticated piece of film: I mean all those actors...and how accurate they are standing around in the positions of the Zapruder-film-bystanders...even the antenna of motorcycle-officer Hargis has the right backward angle (as one can see in the Zappi film)...but wait: there is some unusual behavior on the south side of Elm street... there is a running "agent" inserted and four Ladys! KK Edited July 1, 2015 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 hmmm - how long after the shooting was the SF Sign removed? these reenactors seem to be using a close replica of the limo - the govt didn't, right? why not, i'm just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 that's a 6 second clip - surely there's a "whole" one around here somewhere...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I saw Executive Action after it came out; But the assassination sequence, I don't even remember; could the film be from that movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 hmmm - how long after the shooting was the SF Sign removed? these reenactors seem to be using a close replica of the limo - the govt didn't, right? why not, i'm just curious... see emphasis... "Whitewash 11..The Report on the Warren Commission"........Harold Weisberg 1966.. Page 4...... "The Commission staff was not unaware of this, for although there is no indication it ever heeded it's own unavoidable proof or wondered why anyone would dream of destroying evidence in the assassination of an American President, the whole story was blurted out by Emmett J.Hudson, ( witness to the killing )groundskeeper of Dealey Plaza, in his belated testimony of July 22,1964, almost two months after the Commission had originally scheduled the end of it's work..( first mentioned page 45..WhiteWash.) . Not only were the hedges and shrubbery trimmed, thus destroying all the projection points essential to photographic analysis, but all the road signs absolutely vital in any reconstruction had been moved-------All Three Of Them--------Zapruder had filmed over the top of the center sign ( Stemmons) ..Two of the signs were entirely removed. The one over which Zapruder filmed was replaced, and there is no reason to believe it's replacement is in exactly the same location in the ground or at exactly the same height above it. Unless both of these conditions, plus the angle of the sign toward Zapruder's lens , were exactly identical with conditions when he took his pictures, no precise reconstruction is possible.. All this funny business with the signs got on the record by accident, not through the dilligence of the Commission or it's counsel. Wesley J.Liebeler was questioning Hudson. Not until eight months to the day after the assassination, but finally Hudson was being questioned. He volunteered this testimony: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign ".....It was this "Stemmons" sign over which Zapruder photographed. "They have? They have moved it?" Liebeler asked, his cool nonchalance preserved in cood type. "Yes, sir." replied Hudson. "That might explain it", Liebeler then said. at the same time, without even seeming so to intend, preserving for both the Commission and history the certain knowledge that the two photographs about which he was interrogating Hudson, one taken at the time of the assassination and the other after it, were not in agreement. ....And here the accidental interest of the Commission in the destruction and multilation of the most essential evidence ended".................. Page 130: "When Hudson reaffirmed his testimony ( and the landscaping also was altered, with the destruction of essential photo-intelligence and analysis reference points in the backgrounds of the pictures)..., the complacent assistant counsel replied, ""That might explain it, because this picture here, No 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time----No. 1.."" The "after" refers to the official reconstruction of the crime!.....Hudson's unanticipated blurting out of what is obvious from the most cursory examination of the photographs evidence marks the beginning and the end of the Commission's interest." ************** I have read various times of sign removal... from near immediately after the assassination (and replaced soon thereafter) to weeks and even months after the assassination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now