[Shooter 2.5]

The Zapruder film shows no such thing. If you have ever shot anything other than paper targets you might know that.

Zapruder was STANDING near the fence. If anyone would have seen a shooter there, he would have been one of the witness. The Zapruder film also shows the corner of the fence. Guess what? Ain’t no one there.

Rifles like the Carcano use about 40,000 CUP and no silencer could have covered that sound.

Check out post 58 and try to explain with facts what happened. You can’t do it.

[msnpatriot]

My interpretation of the Zapruder Film is as I stated...And the head being pushed back violently shows a shot from the front...The head moving forward slightly is from a shot from the rear just fractions of a second before, probably from the Daltex building...Maybe depository...No chain of evidence suggests Oswald was the shooter...Zapruder mentioned a disturbance from the Knoll privately...At that time people caught on quick that testimony supporting Oswald as the shooter was expected...Much written on this, people saw what happened to witnesses who told the truth of what they saw, lets take Jean Hill for example, the lady who did an interview on NBC and said the shots came from the knoll. There are many witnesses with useful info who never testified to the Warren Commission for the reason I stated...There are numerous witnesses of shots from the Knoll...The DPD police were called to the area behind the knoll first before anywhere else to check out and clear....Check out what Ruby said just before he died...Read about Dorothy Kilgallen...Read Jim Garrisons book, a person BTW who had an impeccable record in the military, and judicial before he investigated JFK...Read the newspaper article I have from 11/22/63, the first report from UPI...stating the comments of the agents near JFK...They said the shots probably came from the knoll....All their statements were changed later...Maybe automatic fire...Did you know the spectators charged the knoll after the shooting? The people there led the way to the crime...I read post 58, I politely disagree....