Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeremy Bojczuk

Members
  • Content Count

    436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeremy Bojczuk

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,579 profile views
  1. David G. Healy writes: What credentials do you need, to point out flaws in people's thinking? I don't suppose many people have better credentials in analysing the technical aspects of Kodachrome film than Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding. Let's see what Prof Fielding has to say. He actually mentions David: In that document, which is well worth reading for anyone who thinks the Zapruder film is a fake, Zavada concludes: Also worth reading is this thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22946-the-zapruder-film-and-film-information-between-the-sprocket
  2. John Kowalski writes: If there's something obvious that I'm missing, I apologise. Perhaps you could try making your point in another way. You wrote earlier that I "say that the conspiracy must not be true." Which conspiracy do you mean? If you mean the 'Harvey and Lee' conspiracy, then of course it isn't true. That particular conspiracy has been shown to be untrue, just as the conspiracy in which the driver shot Kennedy, or the conspiracy in which all the photographs and home movies were faked, have been shown to be untrue. As I explained, there is no good reason to suppose t
  3. John Kowalski, I don't recall you taking a large part in earlier 'Harvey and Lee' discussions, so I assume you haven't yet fallen into the paranoid rabbit hole, and are still amenable to reason. You write that I If by 'conspiracy' you mean the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger scheme, we know it can't be true. We know that not because of any made-up scenario but because many elements of the theory have been looked at in detail, and they all have serious faults. If you don't believe me, check some of the links I provided. If by 'conspiracy' you mean the plot to kill Pr
  4. David G. Healy writes: I am well acquainted with the Warren Report, thank you very much, and with Mr Zavada's report, which demolishes from a technical point of view the claim that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not the one that was in Zapruder's own camera. Zavada's report by itself refutes the claim that this part of the Zapruder film, or that part, or the whole film, is a fake. Anyone who's interested in reading Zavada's report can find a link to it here, along with articles discussing the report: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm It would be in your
  5. Jack White was a top-class fruitcake. You name it, he thought it was faked: the Zapruder film, most of the other assassination images, the moon landings, the planes flying into the World Trade Center, Lee Harvey Oswald, Marguerite Oswald. All fakes! White's appearance before the HSCA doesn't give him any credibility. The opposite, in fact. His ignorance got him shredded: http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html He didn't understand the simple fact that when you photograph an object from slightly different angles, the proportions of the object (in this case, the sixth-floor rifle)
  6. I wrote: David sort of replied: Firstly, David will find out what the word 'your' really means here: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling Secondly, I'd guess David's reply means that he does agree with Paul that all the films and photos were faked. Again: three home movies and two still photographs, plus the Zapruder film, show that the car did not move over into the left-hand lane. How did the masterminds manage to fake them all, given that: the films and photos came to light at different times; they were distributed and became publicly available at
  7. John Kowalski writes: Oh, I have looked at the evidence presented in Harvey and Lee, and at the evidence presented on this forum by the cult's few believers. That evidence has been looked at by plenty of other people too. The theory has been done to death over the past couple of decades. Every element of the theory that has been looked at in detail has been shown to be, at best, poorly supported, and at worst outright nonsense. Just like other examples of extreme JFK assassination conspiracy theories, it relies overwhelmingly on reading far, far too much into common-or-garden
  8. David G. Healy writes: If I've interpreted this correctly, David is asking me to find a copy of the film that contradicts the one we all know and love, and point out inconsistencies between the two, and explain why these inconsistencies couldn't have happened. Why? It's David, not me, who thinks there are 'disputed' images out in public. What has any of that got to do with the point I was making? If David is claiming that the Zapruder film is faked, it's up to him to: - tell us exactly which parts of the film have been altered (everyone who thinks the film is a fake seem
  9. Paul Bacon writes: I'd imagine that pretty much anything could have been removed, in theory, given the right tools and sufficient time. But why assume that any of this data was there in the first place? I showed earlier that there's no reason to assume that backwards-flying "exit debris" would have been captured in the film. What reason is there to assume that any of the other supposedly incriminating data were captured in the film? If the only evidence for them is anomalous witness statements and the like, we can discard them, for reasons I've already given. Even if sufficient ti
  10. Paul has constructed a far-fetched and ridiculously complex structure out of essentially nothing but his imagination. How has he managed this? It's because the methodology used by Paul, and by other 'everything is a fake' believers, is faulty: - A small subset of the relevant witnesses reported something anomalous, so it must have happened! - A poor-quality reproduction of an image contains anomalies, so the image must have been altered! - A document mentions something anomalous, so it must be accurate! But people are fallible. They can make mistakes when filling in forms an
  11. Paul Rigby writes: Exactly! He's got there at last! If evidence of a conspiracy was no problem, there was no need to alter the Zapruder film. Paul has made his entire, Byzantine, cast-of-thousands conspiracy redundant. Why does Paul feel the need to invent things that then need to be excised from the film? His easily falsified car-in-the-left-hand-lane nonsense, for example. Why invent that, insert it into the film, and then have to invent a team of film-fakers to remove it? The same goes for every imaginary piece of incriminating evidence that we don't actually see in t
  12. Ron Bulman writes: I dealt with this point a couple of posts ago, on this very page: Horne assumes that the camera must have caught any backwards-flying debris, but he was wrong. If no backwards-flying debris was captured on the Zapruder film, there was no need to hire a team of film-fakers to remove it.
  13. Paul Bacon writes: Why should we trust his memory? He was interviewed in 1997, 34 years after the event he described. You may not want his memory to be fogged, but it's quite conceivable that it was.
  14. Denny Zartman writes: You're correct that the 'back and to the left' head snap doesn't persuade everyone who sees it, but that wasn't what I was claiming. Public showings of the Zapruder film, such as the Geraldo screening and Stone's JFK, have been the catalysts for all the main revivals of interest in the case. These revivals must have been due substantially to what people saw in the Zapruder film that they thought was inconsistent with the lone-gunman doctrine. The most obvious such evidence in the film is the 'back and to the left' head snap. It's true that some people cl
  15. Paul Rigby writes: The guy who wasted the ARRB's time by promoting Lifton's body-alteration nonsense? That's a big warning sign that there's a purveyor of craziness on the loose. As it happens, though, I have read some of his Zapruder-alteration stuff. It's just as nonsensical as his body-alteration stuff. On the plus side, he is a decent writer. Horne offers three alternative explanations for the presence of the 'back and to the left' head snap in the Zapruder film: 1 - The film surgeons didn't have the time to remove every item of incriminating evidence, so they left that o
×
×
  • Create New...