Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Zapruder Film
January 6, 2006 2:32 PM   Subscribe

Stablized Zapruder Film of Kennedy Assassination (link to .mov) Clearer than you've ever seen before. Amazing and disturbing (from kottke).
posted by kdern (97 comments total)

 
mostly disturbing but much clearer than I thought it would be..
posted by pez_LPhiE at 2:35 PM on January 6, 2006


Isn't there some doubt about the legitmacy of this stabilized version?

/sets up tin-foil hat and burger stand.
posted by Navek Rednam at 2:36 PM on January 6, 2006


That's much much more disturbing than the unstabilized version.
posted by bshort at 2:39 PM on January 6, 2006


it's hard to see how it could be anything other than legitimate. The stabilization technology is here now -- and the film even shows you the window that it used to try to stabilize the footage, jumping around at a high rate of speed.

Amazing work.
posted by felix at 2:40 PM on January 6, 2006


How many films of this were there?

Anyway, there's a bright flash near Kennedy's head, but not the other guys, which makes it seem unlikely that they were hit with separate bullets, IMO.
posted by delmoi at 2:41 PM on January 6, 2006


Wow. I've seen that footage about a zillion times, as we all have, and never been so shocked by it before.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:41 PM on January 6, 2006


Also, Stabilized
Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage
, which is also cool. (Warning: 4MB animated gif).
posted by Laen at 2:41 PM on January 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


Good Lord... that is so much clearer than the original.

Still wish that friggin sign wasn't in the way!! You can't see the first bullet come through and get both of them.

My stepdad, who was in Federal law enforcement for 30 years and not prone to flights of fancy, once solemnly stated that it was LBJ who had Kennedy assasinated.

Something in his voice when he said it totally and completely convinced me.
posted by BobFrapples at 2:45 PM on January 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


File not found on that link.
posted by Relay at 2:46 PM on January 6, 2006


The requested URL /KF/0512/zapruder_stable.mov was not found on this server.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:46 PM on January 6, 2006


hmmm... a Safari problem?

Not Found

The requested URL /KF/0512/zapruder_stable.mov was not found on this server.

Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat) Server at blogfiles.wfmu.org Port 80
posted by doctor_negative at 2:46 PM on January 6, 2006


Also, Stabilized
Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage, which is also cool.


Well shit... now that just looks like a fat man out for an afternoon walk.
posted by BobFrapples at 2:46 PM on January 6, 2006


It was taken down. Darn. I wanted to check it out.
posted by dios at 2:47 PM on January 6, 2006


Oooh, thanks Laen, that's awesome. The Kennedy footage really freaked me out, which I wasn't expecting. Amazing what a slight shift in perspective can bring.
posted by tristeza at 2:47 PM on January 6, 2006


A torrent for the video.
posted by Laen at 2:48 PM on January 6, 2006


I think this is another link to it, but I didn't see the first one so ya know.
posted by puke & cry at 2:49 PM on January 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


You can also get the film here.
posted by driveler at 2:50 PM on January 6, 2006


Absolutely incredible...and even more Grassy Knoll-tastic despite all that neurospasm crap.
posted by fire&wings at 2:52 PM on January 6, 2006


Gruesome... Absolutely gruesome.
posted by Elpoca at 2:54 PM on January 6, 2006


That's amazing. Disconcerting, but amazing.
posted by Meredith at 2:54 PM on January 6, 2006


Also, Stabilized
Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage, which is also cool. (Warning: 4MB animated gif).
posted by Laen at 2:41 PM PST on January 6 [!]


Thanks for this link.. Now I totally believe it's a human dressed up. I mean you can see this dimension and his walking posture..
posted by pez_LPhiE at 3:00 PM on January 6, 2006


Also, I think this was posted in a JFK thread here a few days back before Kottke had it.
posted by fire&wings at 3:00 PM on January 6, 2006


Isn't there some doubt about the legitmacy of this stabilized version?

Heck, conspiracy nuts will doubt anything, although as a layman looking at this, in the stabilized footage it does look more like the bullet came from the front. Oliver Stone would probably love this.

And I'm surprised this hadn't been done sooner, I know there's a lot of stabilizing software out there now, but I don't see why someone couldn't have done this by hand twenty or thirty years ago.
posted by bobo123 at 3:01 PM on January 6, 2006


.
posted by notmydesk at 3:03 PM on January 6, 2006


Yeah, and Kottke got it from BoingBoing. Or Digg. It's been on there three times in the last month.
posted by spock at 3:18 PM on January 6, 2006


I wish they had done the same trick of not erasing the previous frames in the JFK video as was done in the bigfoot clip.
I'm also not a big fan of snuff videos...
posted by darkness at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2006


That is interesting.

Incidentally, I look out of my office window everyday and can see where Zapruder was standing. Everyday hundreds of people pile through that area and still think back to day. Interestingly, the City of Dallas is finally doing some work in that area which has remained untouched since Kennedy's Assassination, including tearing out the infamous fence, behind which the second gunman was supposed to be standing. But even when it is changed, there will be the tour guides and conspiracy museums and throngs of tourists who all come there because they want to believe that it wasn't just a lone gunman.
posted by dios at 3:21 PM on January 6, 2006


I have no interest in commenting on the death of JFK but I would ask that you consider this one simple proposition. We have the Zapruder film that is supposed to tell us a good deal. But who processed the film and how do we know that what we have been given is what in fact was shot in that camera?
in sum: can you tell me who processed the film?
posted by Postroad at 3:22 PM on January 6, 2006


Stop it, spock. Your logic is disturbing.
posted by gsb at 3:23 PM on January 6, 2006


Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:24 PM on January 6, 2006


Also, Stabilized Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage, which is also cool.

That monkey is rubbish.

Very funny though
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:26 PM on January 6, 2006


Oh, and there's this. Read it whilst you're drunk, or under the influence -- it's groovy.
posted by gsb at 3:26 PM on January 6, 2006


Can anyone explain the signifigance of this to me? I understand that a clearer, more stable video is likely to shed more light on what happened, make drawing conclusions from the video more possible, but what does this version show/tell us that the original shaky version didn't?

I hope I don't seem totally callow, as I respect JFK and his presidency, but I don't know what I'm supposed to see when I watch this, and I certainly am not any more emotionally affected than I have been watching the original version multiple times over the years.
posted by chudmonkey at 3:31 PM on January 6, 2006


Postroad: IIRC the footage was seized by the FBI and sent to Kodak for development. Not sure what you are getting at considering the Zapruder film shows the same sequence of events that several other films recorded that day show.
posted by fire&wings at 3:33 PM on January 6, 2006


ObFuturamaQuoteAboutBigfoot:

Sal: Have yous ever seens Bigfeet?
Park: Technically, no. But I do see him each night in my dreams and each day in the silent faces of hairy children.
Professor: Bunk! Bunk I say! Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot's droppings or shut up!
Park: I have the droppings of someone who saw Bigfoot.
Professor: Shut up!
posted by Laen at 3:36 PM on January 6, 2006


Yeah, I've been there too. Very weird.
posted by delmoi at 3:36 PM on January 6, 2006


chudmonkey,
For one thing, you can clearly see the moment Gov. Connely gets shot (notice Kennedy lift his had to his ear, as if, perhaps, a bullet just whizzed by, at the same time as Connely drops. Note, too the driver of the car look back quickly at Connely) This all followed quickly by the front of JFKs head atomizing.

Make whatever you wish. Or don't. The clarity is what is quite amazing.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:38 PM on January 6, 2006


This video totally bad-tripped me two nights ago. Moving gore is so much more disturbing than still gore.

Ughh
posted by redteam at 3:44 PM on January 6, 2006


Can someone rerender it at HDTV resolution? And maybe put R2 and 3PO in there, to help with continuity? Thanx.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:45 PM on January 6, 2006


Do we have video of them losing Kennedy’s brain?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:48 PM on January 6, 2006


posted by blue_beetle Can someone rerender it at HDTV resolution? And maybe put R2 and 3PO in there, to help with continuity? Thanx.

HAN SHOT FIRST!
posted by fandango_matt at 3:49 PM on January 6, 2006


Do we have video of them losing Kennedy’s brain?

Yeah, it's locked in a vault in Fort Knox alongside Connally's dry cleaned suit, 18 minutes of Watergate audio and the twisted steel of WTC 1 & 2, guarded by aliens from Roswell.

I'm kidding of course, it's not actually at Fort Knox.
posted by edverb at 3:56 PM on January 6, 2006


...notice Kennedy lift his had to his ear, as if, perhaps, a bullet just whizzed by...

When I first saw that, my first thought was that he was on the phone. It really is more dangerous to use a cell phone in the car.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 4:01 PM on January 6, 2006


Mmmm, presidential snuff flicks.
posted by palinode at 4:05 PM on January 6, 2006


In a related story, here are some high-resolution films of the Hindenburg.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:09 PM on January 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


Sooo... Bigfoot shot Kennedy?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:15 PM on January 6, 2006


"Do we have video of them losing Kennedy’s brain?"

Isn't that what I just watched?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:16 PM on January 6, 2006


Makes one wonder to what end will people go to glorify this event even more. At this point, even if the forensic information could be brought together to prove the lone-gunman theory to be false, and that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, what possible good could it do? Most of the participants are surely dead or nearly dead. Political events of 40 years ago have long ago played out. What really is the point?
posted by crunchland at 4:18 PM on January 6, 2006


I think this is from a 2-hour Discovery Channel documentary they aired a while back (although it might have been the History Channel). It was actually very good. The re-processed and/or reconstructed everything they could get their hands on. Too bad I can't find any details on it.
posted by smackfu at 4:34 PM on January 6, 2006


Political events of 40 years ago have long ago played out. What really is the point?

In 40 years someone will say the same thing about Iraq. Repeat ad infinitum.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 4:37 PM on January 6, 2006


ad infinitum
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:41 PM on January 6, 2006


I can't remember where, but I saw the zupruder footage synced with the audio from that was recorded from one of the cops in the motorcade who had his mic stuck open. The combination made the footage even that much more impactful.

Anyone know whereabouts that synced footage might be?
posted by drinkmaildave at 4:43 PM on January 6, 2006


that damn John Siegenthaler
posted by matteo at 5:05 PM on January 6, 2006


This is sort of old - it's been around for a while
posted by webwhore at 5:24 PM on January 6, 2006


How is this any different from the DVD of a few years ago which digitised and stabilised the Z home movie?
posted by A189Nut at 5:26 PM on January 6, 2006


The analysis of the missing frames here was pretty interesting, I thought. via BoingBoing
posted by Aknaton at 5:28 PM on January 6, 2006


Some helpful bod coralized it, so there's also a copy here: blogfiles.wfmu.org.nyud.net:8090/KF/0512/zapruder_stable.mov

Don't watch this if you have QuickTime Player set to loop and reverse.
posted by scruss at 5:39 PM on January 6, 2006


it does look more like the bullet came from the front

Richard Feynman steadfastly disagrees. You can also do the same measurements yourself. Check frames 313 and 314:

"Even though Frame 313 is blurred, Feynman was able to measure the position of JFK’s head compared to fixed parts of the limousine (like the handle reflection between the Kennedys and the Connallys). Feynman found that JFK’s head moved forwards at the moment of impact.

The laws of physics then tell us that the shot must have come from behind!"

posted by rodney stewart at 5:41 PM on January 6, 2006


The audio from the police outrider is also the subject of considerable dispute. It is not the pure record of the event that people imagine the 1979 House Assassinations Committee declared it; the recording has considerable cross-talk which makes it difficult to authenticate the noises (which if you listen to them are inaudible as gunshots); also it seems to have suffered from imprinting, such that noises heard after the assassination appear on the recording of the vital moments; finally it is not even clear that the recording was made by a motorcycle in the motorcade. Last year work began to digitize the dictabelt - anyone know if the results are available yet?
posted by A189Nut at 5:53 PM on January 6, 2006


Oh, crap. You can clearly see me in that stabilized version.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:59 PM on January 6, 2006


"it does look more like the bullet came from the front"

Why? Because the explosion of blood and bone is at the front? I've always felt there is a simple test here. If you ever lock yourself out of your house, break a window to get back in. If the glass fragments go forwards (eg inwards) and land on your carpet, then you have proved that a force applied in one direction produces a result in the same direction. In other words, the top/front of JFK's head blows forwards because the force is applied to the rear - entry and exit. It does not blow backwards, as a front impacting bullet exiting from the rear would. The only way out of this is the so called exploding bullet - but there is no evidence whatsoever (fragments, etc) of that.

If you feel so because JFK goes "back and to the left" well, that's an old one, much disputed. Explanations for his movement include the "jet effect" of the explosion, and the simple fact that he was sitting perched forwards and upright on his seat (constrained as he was by the bandaging he wore wrapped around his body to help with his back pain - and why he did not duck some say) and so when shot in the brain he collapsed backwards.

Incidentally, if you'd like to try for yourself download the demo of JFK Reloaded, the game from a year or two back. I think you will see that it is not difficult to hit JFK.
posted by A189Nut at 6:03 PM on January 6, 2006


The analysis of the missing frames here was pretty interesting, I thought.

Yeah, that was really interesting- and some of it had me raising my eyebrows, especially the bit rodney stewart just quoted- you can watch his head moving forward. The rest, about blurring and photography, well, I'd like to see a point/counterpoint argument, those who believe it's real arguing against the arguments. You know, like all the 9/11 conspiracy sites and all the sites that debunk those sites...
posted by Meredith at 6:05 PM on January 6, 2006


Wow. That brings it all back. Like it was yesterday.

There I was. A small child. Unsure of the implications of what I was seeing. The echoing shots. The rush of terrified onlookers. And me. Running down the grass behind Dealy Plaza. The hot steel muzzle of my small custom italian made rifle burning against my thigh underneath the concealing rain slicker that I... er... nevermind. I see I have said to much already.

But seriously I can say with all honesty I cried half the night when Kennedy was shot. I KNOW I shit my pants at least once.
posted by tkchrist at 6:09 PM on January 6, 2006


If you were shot in the head, your head would be forced towards the gun, not pushed away. The mass of the bullet isn't enough to push the head, considering that the head has a jet of stuff forcing its way out the other side. In most cases, if someone stood in front of you and shot your head, your head would be forced forward, not backwards.
posted by grimcity at 6:13 PM on January 6, 2006


Um, see, since the front of Kennedy's head does what it does, it's a rather obvious indication that the shot came from behind.

High powered rifle rounds make a bullet-sized hole on entry, then flatten and tumble and make a much, much larger hole on exit, even (and sometimes especially) on a relatively rigid object like a skull.

My stepdad shot a deer through the head from about 80 yards with a .30-30, and that's precisely what happened. .30" (7.6mm) hole on the impact side, 5" wide moon crater out the other. (For you hunters and rifle enthusiasts, it was a Remington soft-point Core-LoktTM round.)

Remember such a bullet is supersonic out to something like 1000-1200 yards, and even using an old Italian rifle, there would be almost zero oscillation of the bullet for at least that far, assuming the weapon was properly cared for.

Also, even though a rifle round has a good bit of kinetic energy, it is expended so fast (on a through-and-through) that it is not usually transferred to the larger body of the shot object. The shot my stepdad fired at the deer did not even bend its neck sideways; the deer actually fell forward and to the left after the hit, which was on the left side of its head. I've put dozens of rounds through beer cans with a .308 that didn't even make the can move because the bullet is so fast - to solve the question of whether I was hitting them, which I couldn't see from over 100 yards away, I learned to fill the cans up with water, which makes for quite a satisfying can explosion.

All them TV shows that show dudes getting knocked over when they get shot are lying. There isn't actually enough kinetic energy in a rifle round - let alone a handgun round - to knock a man over.

So you can't interpret Kennedy's movements as the result of "bullet force;" in fact, what happens to his skull, as shown so clearly here, is where the kinetic energy of the bullet was expended.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:13 PM on January 6, 2006


If you were shot in the head, your head would be forced towards the gun, not pushed away. The mass of the bullet isn't enough to push the head, considering that the head has a jet of stuff forcing its way out the other side. In most cases, if someone stood in front of you and shot your head, your head would be forced forward, not backwards

It's got nothing to do with the mass of the bullet; it's the force of its arrival in your head that matters. If I shot you in the head from in front, your head would go back. Take a look at the footage of the shooting in Saigon in Tet 68 for instance.
posted by A189Nut at 6:20 PM on January 6, 2006


The laws of physics then tell us that the shot must have come from behind!"

Do the laws also tell us there was only one amateur sniper also?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:25 PM on January 6, 2006


also
posted by dash_slot- at 6:30 PM on January 6, 2006


Shooting stuff and it's weird effect are covered here.
posted by oxala at 6:31 PM on January 6, 2006


*head explodes*

Mine, I mean. The film is gruesome to watch in a clear print. And I'm thinking how it's a little suspicious that Jackie just happened to be wearing pink that day. No, I'm thinking how maybe if she had leaned over him a bit more, had held him, it might have been her brain spraying up out of frame 313. I'm also thinking that the next assassination will probably be filmed from seventeen angles.
posted by pracowity at 6:35 PM on January 6, 2006


some of the aforementioned 9/11 conspiracy 'debunking' sites are peddling some seriously heavy mind-rotting garbage. christ, even the debunkers need debunking these days. something very drastically screwed up at debunkers.org
posted by rodney stewart at 6:35 PM on January 6, 2006


To follow up, a page from the Warren Commission report describing their tests with Oswald's rifle.

Found some specs for this rifle's ammo:

6.5mmx52, 156 grain, muzzle velocity 2100 fps

Which compares closely to the Remington .30 Win SPCL:

.30 Winchester, 150 grain, muzzle velocity 2360 fps

So, it's not far off to compare my stepdad's shot to Oswald's, surprisingly. Even the range was similar, as Oswald's shots were between about 175 and 250 feet, where my stepdad's was at about 240 feet.

However, Oswald used a scope. Stepdad used the iron sights. And for a trained rifleman, a 200-foot shot with a scope on a slowly-moving target is a piece of cake.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:38 PM on January 6, 2006


LHO was a good shot. Download the game, try it yourself
posted by A189Nut at 6:39 PM on January 6, 2006


Zoogleplex - has often been my experience that if you ask people the range Oswald shot from they suggest numbers like 400 yards or more. Tell them it was 250 feet max and they are surprised indeed. Most visitors to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas are surprised too by the sheer proximity. As one said to me, "I could have hit him with a rock from here"
posted by A189Nut at 6:46 PM on January 6, 2006


Exactly, A189.

"And where did these men learn to shoot like that?"

"Sir, in the Marine Corps, sir!"

"That's right, in the Marine Corps!"


Oswald was a trained and practiced shooter, but just about any Marine rifleman (or Army for that matter) could duplicate that, as could a high percentage of civilian shooters. I'd bet I could have done it when I was 17 and shooting regularly, but probably not right now.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:49 PM on January 6, 2006


A189Nut writes "It's got nothing to do with the mass of the bullet; it's the force of its arrival in your head that matters."

This sentence is confusing. Rather than thinking in terms of force, it's better to think in terms of the bullet transferring momentum (or energy) to its target. In any case, of course the mass of the bullet matters, as does its velocity.

In most the case of a gunshot wound, most of the energy of the bullet goes to penetrating the target, rather than moving the target. It's not like on TV or an action movie, where someone who's shot flies backwards. Hell, for that to happen, there would have to be enough kick at the gun to send the shooter flying backwards, too.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:53 PM on January 6, 2006


Yes exactly mr_roboto. Bullets are very light but moving very fast, so since kinetic energy = 1/2 mass X velocity squared, it's the speed that gives it all the energy.

A high-powered rifle kicks fairly hard, and of course for every action (in this case, the powder burning really fast) there's an equal but opposite reaction (bullet goes zoom, rifle kicks back). Since the bullet is only a tiny fraction of the mass of the rifle, the force applied to it is precisely the same as that applied to your shoulder as the weapon recoils - but it's applied to a small mass with a very small cross-section.

Also, on the far end, the energy expended at target depends greatly on the type of bullet used. A solid copper jacket bullet will usually go straight through a person, even the skull, leaving relatively small entry and exit wounds (though the exit will be larger). A bullet with an exposed lead core, like the .30 Win round I describe above, is a hunting round designed to mushroom out on impact to a much larger diameter, causing a really huge wound, which brings your animal down instantly, as it did - shoot a deer with a full metal jacket and he'll likely run for miles before he bleeds out.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:04 PM on January 6, 2006


zoogleplex writes "Also, on the far end, the energy expended at target depends greatly on the type of bullet used."

Just to be super-clear, the energy the bullet has when it hits the target is independent of its type; that depends only on its speed and mass. The reason different bullets expend different amounts of energy is because some types are slowed more than other types in the process of penetration (because of how they deform upon impact). The slower a bullet is going on exiting the target, the more energy the target has absorbed (assuming bullets of equal mass with equal initial velocity).

I know that you know that; I just wanted it to be clear for the sake of the thread.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:17 PM on January 6, 2006


Two TV programs explore the Kennedy assasination from a non-tinfoil-hat point of view, and come down pretty hard in favor of the Oswald acted alone:

Frontline: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/

Discovery Channel: Beyond the Magic Bullet

Ballistics experts painstakingly recreate the shot from the book repository using ballistics models and recreate Kennedy's and Connelly injuries in one shot from the same firing position using the same make of rifle and bullet. The bullet the fire also ends up almost in pistine condition barely embedded in Connelly's leg just like the actual shot.

But conspiracy theories are more fun.
posted by StarForce5 at 7:18 PM on January 6, 2006


Since the bullet is only a tiny fraction of the mass of the rifle, the force applied to it is precisely the same as that applied to your shoulder as the weapon recoils - but it's applied to a small mass with a very small cross-section.

And, of course -- the bullet can only throw you as far as it threw the shooter -- namely, nowhere.

A .30 round kicks a bit, but not much -- that's all the energy there is, dissapated into a human sized target. Yes, the bullet, with much less mass, moves much faster and farther -- but the person it hits will feel no more force than the person who fired the round. Add in air drag, and the fact that a jacketed round is going to go through a person, and the person hit will move much less than the person who fired it. F=ma, and the difference in m between a bullet and a person is very large, indeed.

The biggest problem I have with the conspiracy nuts is that they apparently never fired a rifle nor passed high school physics.
posted by eriko at 7:38 PM on January 6, 2006


It was Oswald. Put the tinfoil hats away and deal with it.
posted by pmurray63 at 7:49 PM on January 6, 2006


This footage strikes me as incredibly odd.

I know very little about the assassination, and have no opinion on if there was more than one shooter or not, and all that jazz.

But there are a couple of things in there I would be indebted to someone if they could explain what is happening at certain points of the film. I've read some of the things linked here, and they all presuppose a base level of knowledge that I simply don't have about this event.

1. As they pass from behind the sign, JFK freezes, and becomes completely motionless, very eerie. What happened here, as I understand, is he was shot in the throat?

2. How did a secret service guy end up on the trunk? As they pass the sign, there are only motorcycles and no SS on foot. Where did he come from?

3. Why was Jackie crawling on the trunk? This strikes me as the strangest part of all. It's not that I suspect conspiracy or anything, I just don't get it or understand what she was doing. Was she trying to escape?
posted by Ynoxas at 8:57 PM on January 6, 2006


Ynoxas, I wondered the same thing about the SS agent on the trunk... he seems to appear out of nowhere. I guess he was on the sidewalk and ran into the procession? He couldn't have got out of that car behind them and run fast enough to climb on the trunk from the middle, like that.

I think Jackie just crawled out on the trunk because she was freaking out. I've read a theory that she saw part of John's head blow out and land on the trunk, and her first instainct was to crawl after it... that sounds so gory I think it's probably urban legend, but at the same time, I know people act strangely in time of shock like this, so I just don't know.
posted by BoringPostcards at 9:11 PM on January 6, 2006


Yep, Kennedy dies in this one too. Pretty awful to watch. And I really wish I didn't have to listen to Kevin Costner saying "Back and to the left" in my head while viewing this.
posted by fenriq at 9:28 PM on January 6, 2006


Yeah, I read a Jackie thing about her trying to salvage a piece of his skull off the trunk then subsequently trying to piece it back, while the time seemed to pass in surreal low motion. It was a vivid account- she described how the inside of his skull looked pink and ribbed just like the roof of your mouth... (Don't ask me for a link to this, I just remember it vividily from years ago)
posted by marvin at 9:28 PM on January 6, 2006


As I understand it, she was actually trying to get the fuck out of the car, and the "recover a chunk of his skull" was invented to prevent her from seemingly cowardly.

No citations here. In fact, I might be quoting Lenny Bruce.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:28 PM on January 6, 2006


The SS guy on the trunk is Clint Hill, who was standing on the running board next to the driver in the followup car. As you can see in the first part of the film, the followup car was only a few feet behind the president's limo. Hill testified that he started running before the head shot.
posted by gubo at 11:08 PM on January 6, 2006


What surprises me is that Jackie could continue living anything like a sane life again. I can't imagine how she kept it together.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:14 PM on January 6, 2006


What surprises me is that Jackie could continue living anything like a sane life again. I can't imagine how she kept it together.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:14 PM on January 6, 2006


That's what Jackie said later -- that in the shock of the moment she was trying to recover the pieces of Jack's skull, to put her husband back together.

The Secret Service agent who jumps on the bumper can be seen riding the sideboard of the trailing car. There are three other agents, but he's the only one with the presence of mind to run like hell, and in slow motion you can see him almost not make it. As I recall, he called out to Jackie, "Mrs. Kennedy!" or something like that and so she reached out to help him climb on board.

And Ynoxas, the first shot came while he was behind the sign. He reacts physically, his arms jump up, then he slumps toward Jackie -- and that's where he was shot in the head.
posted by dhartung at 11:25 PM on January 6, 2006


mr_roboto: yes, thanks for making that extra clear. I didn't quite communicate properly.

"The biggest problem I have with the conspiracy nuts is that they apparently never fired a rifle nor passed high school physics."

Precisely! They sure have watched a lot of TV though, huh?

And I agree pmurray: it was Oswald, and that's that.

Now, as to why Jack Ruby shot him...??? That's a whole other can o' worms.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:43 AM on January 7, 2006


Clint Hill affirmed Jackie's account (about going after part of her husband's head). How completely, unimaginably horrific.

It doesn't seem strange to me at all that her first instinct would be to try and do that, actually. It's bizarrely logical--I mean, how on earth would anyone have the presence of mind to process what was happening right away, and act accordingly? Hill was the only one of the people with training for just such an event to react in any kind of timely way, and even he felt like he just moved too late.

But to have your husband's head blow up when you're looking right at him, touching him....oh, man, how do you get past that?
posted by LooseFilter at 2:56 PM on January 7, 2006


Jfk was killed by weapons of mass destruction.
posted by telstar at 4:48 PM on January 7, 2006


You misspelled "distraction."
posted by ColdChef at 7:29 PM on January 7, 2006


I think Jack may have been wearing a back brace, propping him up.
posted by hortense at 8:47 PM on January 7, 2006


Case Closed
posted by Jofus at 4:02 AM on January 9, 2006


The stabilized video wasn't especially interesting to me - bear in mind that I was born in 1981 - but that analysis page mentioned autopsy photos surfacing in the 1980s, so I went looking. Boy was that dumb. Squick much?
posted by etoile at 10:46 AM on January 10, 2006


« Older Rotating RAdio Transients...  |  Indian Country Today... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments