Pro-alteration Zapruder film websites

[David G. Healy]

For those that did not notice earlier - here is Dr. John Costella's [and other HOAX contributors] rebuttal to the detractors of Dr. Jim Fetzer's - The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. [the first site was setup immediately after the book release - in response to NON Z-film alteration proponents comments, questions and accusations...]

The second site addresses specific concerns raised by Dr. Costella, regarding the Z-film.

the original site - addressing non Z-film alteration proponents concerns

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/

more perplexing questions with animation examples...

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html

David Healy

Edited August 5, 2004 by David G. Healy

[James R Gordon]

In his document “The Wound Mistake” ( to be found at http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html )John Costella argues that between Z 312 and Z 313 JFK was hit in the head by a bullet twice: first from behind and then from in front.

This is not a new theory, Josiah Thompson had advocated it in 1967 in his book “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Like David Lifton and others, he too had noticed this dramatic movement between frames Z 312 and Z 313. Like John Costella in his document, Josiah Thompson had also initially come to the belief that the only logical argument to describe such a movement was that prior to the head shot from the front, John Kennedy had suffered another shot to the head fired from the rear. In recent years Josiah Thompson has gone on record to state he now believes that he is in error on that point. He still acknowledges there is a movement between these frames, but he no longer believes it was caused by a bullet being fired from the rear.

Many researchers had serious problems with the theory in the first place. As they point out, suppose there had been a shot that struck JFK in the rear of the head, where is the damage that ought to be present in the face area. Even John Costella acknowledges this is a problem in the existing autopsy images. All of them demonstrate that there was no damage to the face area and had a bullet entered from the rear of the head we ought to have expected some sort of damage to the face area. All John Costella says about this discrepancy is that “either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos ( or both ) have to be forgeries.” However, it is equally possible that both are legitimate documents. I am not sure they both are, I also have serious questions about the autopsy photos.

There is a further problem with this theory. People need to bear in mind that the head shot was not inflicted at Z 313: it was inflicted between Z 312 and Z 313. We do not see it being inflicted at Z 313, we see the consequence of it then. If this theory ( of the two head shots ) is realistic then between Z 312 and Z 313 JFK was struck twice in the head: first from behind and then from in front. The problem with this is that the shot that came first suspends the reaction of the second shot until Z 314. Realistically if JFK had been struck twice we should not see the forward movement. That should have been overridden by the impact of the second shot that entered from the front. But that is not what happens. The first shot overrides the second shot and its’ impact is delayed by the impact of the first shot. I doubt that would have happened, had JFK been shot as John Costella argues.

I was one of the authors of the criticism of the TGZFH. As such I was privy to all the discussions that went on in the group as we put together our web site and our responses to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Towards the end of our discussions, just after we had launched the web site, we actually visited this question of the forward movement between Z 312 and Z 313. As we realised, if it was not a bullet that caused this movement, what on earth was it? We all accepted that some external force had been behind this and what, for a while, perplexed us was exactly what this force was. During these discussions we noticed that it was not just JFK that moves forward: Jackie does, Nellie does, John Connally does and Roy Kellerman does. The only one who does not appear move forward is Bill Greer. One thing everyone can agree on is that Jackie, Nellie and Roy were not injured by bullets and John Connaly is not shot during this period. So, if John Costella is right that the forward movement by JFK was caused by a bullet why are all the rest ( who were either NOT shot at all or were not shot during this period ) also moving forward at the same time? We concluded that what was propelling John Kennedy forward was also propelling the others forward.

Our conclusion was that during this period Bill Greer was applying the breaks to the car and particularly during the period Z 310/11 to Z 313. At Z 260 the car is moving at around 12 MPH. By Z 300 the car is moving at around 10 MPH and by Z 314 it is moving at around 8 MPH. Add to that, that during this period the car is actually going down a hill and not along a level road. And finally Bill Greer who is facing JFK during this period Z 305 to Z 315, probably sees the bullet that hit JFK in the head. There are images that show the break lights being on and with Bill Greer facing the rear, it is more than likely his foot was on the break, though not necessarily breaking. We wondered if during this period Bill Greer involuntarily applied the breaks. And as I say our conclusion for JFK’s ( and everyone else’s ) forward movement was as a consequence of the breaks being applied.

John Costella's gif of this sequence demonstrates that all these people are moving at the same time. The gif is cropped, so you don’t see Roy Kellerman. There is an understandable logic in suggesting that the forward movement by JFK between Z 312 and Z 313 is caused by a bullet. However there are questions that require answering that John Costella does not address.

1. If the movement is the cause of a bullet, then why are the others moving at the same time. If you look at the sequence from Z 300 to Z 315 you will see that when JFK moves forward that is when Nellie and Roy Kellerman move. Jackie has already been moving closer to JFK to see what is wrong. From Z 312 her movement changes to a forward movement. John Connally is already trying to raise himself. However from Z 312 his movement also changes. So effectively everyone moves at this point, but only JFK is argued to have been shot. So what causes the others to move if they have not been shot?

2. If JFK has been shot in the back of the head, why is there no evidence in facial area as there ought to be.

3. If the second shot came from the front, how does the first shot from the rear suspend it’s effect? Why does the second shot not override the first shot: in other words why are we able to see the reaction of the first shot? Surely that should have been obliterated by the effect of the second shot?

James.

[David G. Healy]

In his document “The Wound Mistake” ( to be found at http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html )John Costella argues that between Z 312 and Z 313 JFK was hit in the head by a bullet twice: first from behind and then from in front.

This is not a new theory, Josiah Thompson had advocated it in 1967 in his book “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Like David Lifton and others, he too had noticed this dramatic movement between frames Z 312 and Z 313. Like John Costella in his document, Josiah Thompson had also initially come to the belief that the only logical argument to describe such a movement was that prior to the head shot from the front, John Kennedy had suffered another shot to the head fired from the rear. In recent years Josiah Thompson has gone on record to state he now believes that he is in error on that point. He still acknowledges there is a movement between these frames, but he no longer believes it was caused by a bullet being fired from the rear.

Many researchers had serious problems with the theory in the first place. As they point out, suppose there had been a shot that struck JFK in the rear of the head, where is the damage that ought to be present in the face area. Even John Costella acknowledges this is a problem in the existing autopsy images. All of them demonstrate that there was no damage to the face area and had a bullet entered from the rear of the head we ought to have expected some sort of damage to the face area. All John Costella says about this discrepancy is that “either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos ( or both ) have to be forgeries.” However, it is equally possible that both are legitimate documents. I am not sure they both are, I also have serious questions about the autopsy photos.

dgh01: Evidently so does Doug Horne who recently posted to this forum regarding the issue of autopsy photo's.

There is a further problem with this theory. People need to bear in mind that the head shot was not inflicted at Z 313: it was inflicted between Z 312 and Z 313. We do not see it being inflicted at Z 313, we see the consequence of it then. If this theory ( of the two head shots ) is realistic then between Z 312 and Z 313 JFK was struck twice in the head: first from behind and then from in front. The problem with this is that the shot that came first suspends the reaction of the second shot until Z 314. Realistically if JFK had been struck twice we should not see the forward movement. That should have been overridden by the impact of the second shot that entered from the front. But that is not what happens. The first shot overrides the second shot and its’ impact is delayed by the impact of the first shot. I doubt that would have happened, had JFK been shot as John Costella argues.

dgh01: looks like we need some science here, correct?

I was one of the authors of the criticism of the TGZFH. As such I was privy to all the discussions that went on in the group as we put together our web site and our responses to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Towards the end of our discussions, just after we had launched the web site, we actually visited this question of the forward movement between Z 312 and Z 313. As we realised, if it was not a bullet that caused this movement, what on earth was it? We all accepted that some external force had been behind this and what, for a while, perplexed us was exactly what this force was. During these discussions we noticed that it was not just JFK that moves forward: Jackie does, Nellie does, John Connally does and Roy Kellerman does. The only one who does not appear move forward is Bill Greer. One thing everyone can agree on is that Jackie, Nellie and Roy were not injured by bullets and John Connaly is not shot during this period. So, if John Costella is right that the forward movement by JFK was caused by a bullet why are all the rest ( who were either NOT shot at all or were not shot during this period ) also moving forward at the same time? We concluded that what was propelling John Kennedy forward was also propelling the others forward.

Our conclusion was that during this period Bill Greer was applying the breaks to the car and particularly during the period Z 310/11 to Z 313. At Z 260 the car is moving at around 12 MPH. By Z 300 the car is moving at around 10 MPH and by Z 314 it is moving at around 8 MPH. Add to that, that during this period the car is actually going down a hill and not along a level road. And finally Bill Greer who is facing JFK during this period Z 305 to Z 315, probably sees the bullet that hit JFK in the head. There are images that show the break lights being on and with Bill Greer facing the rear, it is more than likely his foot was on the break, though not necessarily breaking. We wondered if during this period Bill Greer involuntarily applied the breaks. And as I say our conclusion for JFK’s ( and everyone else’s ) forward movement was as a consequence of the breaks being applied.

dgh01: of course it could be the limo accelerating at that point - IF, the film is altered, ALL bets are off -- your assumption is the Z-film is NOT altered -- Apples and Oranges, James.

John Costella's gif of this sequence demonstrates that all these people are moving at the same time. The gif is cropped, so you don’t see Roy Kellerman. There is an understandable logic in suggesting that the forward movement by JFK between Z 312 and Z 313 is caused by a bullet. However there are questions that require answering that John Costella does not address.

1. If the movement is the cause of a bullet, then why are the others moving at the same time. If you look at the sequence from Z 300 to Z 315 you will see that when JFK moves forward that is when Nellie and Roy Kellerman move.

dgh01: bullet hit same time as Limo accelerration?

Jackie has already been moving closer to JFK to see what is wrong. From Z 312 her movement changes to a forward movement. John Connally is already trying to raise himself. However from Z 312 his movement also changes. So effectively everyone moves at this point, but only JFK is argued to have been shot. So what causes the others to move if they have not been shot?

2. If JFK has been shot in the back of the head, why is there no evidence in facial area as there ought to be.

3. If the second shot came from the front, how does the first shot from the rear suspend it’s effect?

dgh01: maybe it's NOT in the Z-film

Why does the second shot not override the first shot: in other words why are we able to see the reaction of the first shot? Surely that should have been obliterated by the effect of the second shot?

dgh01: Surely? Be nice if we could get the Z-film authenticated, forensiclly! Establish a credible panel of film expert's to take a real serious look at the physical properties of the extant Z-film and the 3 opticalprints from that 1st day!

David Healy

James.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 6, 2004 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

Mr. Gordon refuses to believe that the Z film is altered.

So he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE! It is impossible to discuss alteration with anyone who has so much time invested. Believe

me...for many years I believed the film was genuine, and it was hard to give it up as a TIMECLOCK of the assassination, because so much else depended on this false assumption.

It was like starting over from scratch in lotsa areas. For many years SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS was my "bible" for what happened; now it appears that it was very important propaganda for the official story.

At least of all the members of the GANG, he is the most polite.

Jack

[James R Gordon]

Jack,

You write:-

“he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE!”

You have not proved that the film is altered. Both the Duluth symposium as well as the book are just a point of view. Professor Fetzer’s team, of which you are a member, are of the opinion that the film has been altered. You have not proved: you have offered your reasons why you believe it to be altered. David Healy, in post 3, made the following point:-

“Surely? Be nice if we could get the Z-film authenticated, forensiclly! (sic) Establish a credible panel of film expert's to take a real serious look at the physical properties of the extant Z-film and the 3 opticalprints (sic) from that 1st day!”

He is right. Neither our side or yours has authenticated the film in such a manner. We believe the film is authentic your side disagree: and that is all we have two opposing viewpoints.

Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen. Clearly, the fact that the other occupants in the car also move forward suggests that something also happened to them at this point. I have offered a reason why I believe you see the other occupants moving forward. You have made no attempt to answer that point?

If you look at the name of this forum you will see it is called the Education Forum. Surely that obliges members to discuss and exchange ideas in an effort to come to a truth? This forum has a great advantage in that it has members who belong to both groups who are in argument over this question. Surely that is an ideal opportunity to educate?

Simply saying “he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE!” ignores the question raised. As pointed out by David, until the film has been authenticated forensically, neither side can 100% establish they are right. So what is your side’s opinion as to why the other members of the car move at the same time, and in the same direction, as JFK does during this period? I assume the authors of the film did not deliberately inset this movement, I assume this is something they did not notice like the Stemmons sign that John Costella argues about. What happened that caused this movement? I assume you accept the movement is real and was missed by the authors and had they noticed they would have removed the movement. So what was it that happened at this point that caused this movement. What is your side’s view on this?

James.

[Bill Miller]

Jack,

You write:-

“he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE!”

James - the above statement shows the deteriorated mindset of Jack White for one can just as easily say that if the film is not altered, then everything Jack has said is nonsense! Jack likes to start with a conclusion and work his way backwards. How else does one make such mistakes like he has over missing trains, 7' tall women, people smaller than parking meters, shadows crossing over curbs on photos that could not have been altered within 30 minutes of the assassination, alleged missing people who are actually seen in frames where Jack isn't looking and so on. Anything Jack doesn't understand becomes proof of photo and film alteration in his mind. The thing to do is not to try and make Jack understand anything, but rather to address those people who can still follow along and reason through the evidence you are presenting to them. Once a legitimate claim concerning a particular photo and film alteration is finally established, then and only then should one be concerned with using it to make various points.

Edited August 24, 2004 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

[...]

The thing to do is not to try and make Jack understand anything, but rather to address those people who can still follow along and reason through the evidence you are presenting to them. Once a legitimate claim concerning a particular photo and film alteration is finally established, then and only then should one be concerned with using it to make various points

----------

And these guys moan on about Jack White...

and WHO might make those decisions regarding legitimate claims concerning film alteration BE, James Gordon, Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson -- YOU? For example; awarding a Director of Photography [DP] and Emmy, and the guy/gal has never looked through a camera viewfinder? that'll NEVER Happen!

We've been waiting for some years regarding your film/photo qualifications -- might start withyour photo industry qualifications -- btw, the Dallas 6th Floor Museum is not in THE "photo industry" ranks!

hmm, where'd my pal Larry Peters go?

Edited August 26, 2004 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

and WHO might make those decisions regarding legitimate claims concerning film alteration BE, James Gordon, Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson -- YOU? For example; awarding a Director of Photography [DP] and Emmy, and the guy/gal has never looked through a camera viewfinder?  that'll NEVER Happen!

We've been waiting for some years regarding your film/photo qualifications -- might start withyour photo industry qualifications -- btw, the Dallas 6th Floor Museum is not in THE "photo industry" ranks!

Looking back over this thread before I joined the Forum it appears that you know the least of anyone about the subject. If you are well versed in it, then you have hidden it well. So far the issues concerning photo and film alteration seem to have been based on a lack of knowledge of the photos and films themselves. Photos being alleged to have been altered only to find they were in the public domain within 30 minutes of the shooting is just one example. Comparing differently shaped shadows on two different walls and thinking they were one in the same, thus you have photo and film alteration is another example. It's the erred interpretations that are being offered as proof of photo and film alteration. Until we are offered a lead that offers something of substance - there is nowhere to go from here.

Edited August 26, 2004 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

You write:-

[...]

Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen.

[...]

Now James, when have I, David Healy E V E R said JFK suffered two shots to the head?

The whole point of possible film fabrication is simple, DIVERSION, James. Nobody wants to test the film James, NO ONE

No wonder you non-alterationists are so touchy. Attributing nonesense to those that never make comments like that...

Why ruin [perform the density tests] a good thing, eh?

David Healy

Edited August 27, 2004 by David G. Healy

[James R Gordon]

You write:-

[...]

Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen.

[...]

Now James, when have I, David Healy E V E R said JFK suffered two shots to the head?

David,

You need to read more closely what I said: I said "your side". By that term I meant the group who were responsible for the book TGZFH. You were a member of that group and contributed to both the symposium and the book itself.

It may be that you, yourself, have never gone on record regarding the twin head shot but members of the group like John Costella have gone on record.

I assume that you support the work and contribution of John Costella to this argument regarding the fabrication of the Zapruder film. Since you all appear to be in agreement on the fundamental issues as stated in the book and symposium I simply used a collective description when referring to this point.

If you are in disagreement with John Costella on this issue, fine I can accept that.

James.

[Bill Miller]

The whole point of possible film fabrication is simple, DIVERSION, James. Nobody wants to test the film James, NO ONE

That's not an accurate stement at all. Everytime a claim of possible Zapruder film alteration comes up - we have tested the observation to see if it had merit. Each time we found that the claim was erroneous. And I agree with James - you should read what he says a little closer.

[David G. Healy]

You write:-

[...]

Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen.

[...]

Now James, when have I, David Healy E V E R said JFK suffered two shots to the head?

David,

            You need to read more closely what I said: I said "your side". By that term I meant the group who were responsible for the book TGZFH. You were a member of that group and contributed to both the symposium and the book itself.

dgh01: James, I read closely - thank you very much

---------

            It may be that you, yourself, have never gone on record regarding the twin head shot but members of the group like John Costella have gone on record.

dgh01: I don't think I spell my last name, Costella!

---------

            I assume that you support the work and contribution of John Costella to this argument regarding the fabrication of the Zapruder film. Since you all appear to be in agreement on the fundamental issues as stated in the book and symposium I simply used a collective description when referring to this point.

dgh01: your SIDE of the debates use of collective description is tiresome and boring, not to mention misleading for the lurkers out there

            If you are in disagreement with John Costella on this issue, fine I can accept that.

dgh01: when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however, neither can your side DISprove what we put up in HOAX. I await your Physicist findings -- actually we've been waiting nearly a year now, if you factor in Tink's accidental acquisition of the HOAX manuscript...

big headstart, James! tap - tap - tap

I undersatand whats at stake if the film is altered, it's okay to be nervous!

Whatever happened to Larry Peter's, you know James?The guy just plum disappeared, imagine that, Lurkers! How's the fog over there?

David

James.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 27, 2004 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh01: when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however,

Well, that explains a lot of the side stepping and not being specific with your answers as Larry Peters must have asked you not to do on numerous occassions.

neither can your side DISprove what we put up in HOAX. I await your Physicist findings -- actually we've been waiting nearly a year now, if you factor in Tink's accidental acquisition of the HOAX manuscript...

The claims were disproven. Larry Peters tried in vain to get you and Jack White to address the critique I did and neither one of you either would or could do it. I could not find one rebuttal that you gave in response to Larry's willingness to debate the alteration claims being made. Your evading the issues does not constitute being able to say someone falied to disprove a claim. I am also troubled by your general or abstract principles of a body of fact. I could say that there is a duplicate planet just like earth in another solar system ... would I be justified in telling people that it must be true because no one can disprove otherwise ... I certainly think not.

Whatever happened to Larry Peter's, you know James?The guy just plum disappeared, imagine that, Lurkers! How's the fog over there?

I see that Larry Peters posted on the "Additional Claims about the Knoll-Wall" thread yesterday. Maybe he stopped posting on this thread because no one was addressing anything specific about the alteration claims ... I certainly find that understandable and quite reasonable on his part.

Edited August 27, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Larry Peters]

Maybe he stopped posting on this thread because no one was addressing anything specific about the alteration claims

That is exactly right, Bill! Looking back on Mr. Healy's replies, I now wonder why he didn't just say to begin with that he had no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. I had the impression, as I am sure others did as well, that Mr. Healy's referencing of the 'Hoax' book was his way of saying that he did support the photo and film alteration side of the coin. In the event that someone should come up with a specific observation concerning Zapruder film alteration - I will be happy to participate in the discussion.

[David G. Healy]

cleared...

Edited August 27, 2004 by David G. Healy