Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeremy Bojczuk

Members
  • Posts

    943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeremy Bojczuk

  1. Douglas Caddy writes: This sounds very much like a scam. Now that most people have got out of the habit of answering phone calls from unfamiliar numbers, scammers are using Windows Defender pop-ups instead: https://informationsecurity.wustl.edu/scam-of-the-month-windows-defender-pop-ups/ There's a similar story here: https://www.wmar2news.com/matterformallory/computer-scam-locks-users-computer-instructs-you-to-call-microsoft-technical-support Another similar case is mentioned on this Microsoft forum: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/ms-windows-defender-and-asks-me-to-call-a-specific/29da9b77-6aca-4920-8d01-1f000d54b7b9 Here's some official advice about how to identify computer scams and what to do if you think you've been scammed: https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-and-report-tech-support-scams That page on the FTC website points out that "Security pop-up warnings from real tech companies will never ask you to call a phone number or click on a link." More evidence that if you're being asked to phone Microsoft, you're about to be scammed: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/what-is-telephone-number-for-security-support/382298f3-3caf-477f-883d-147a1e24033a That forum suggests that you download and use the free version of Malwarebytes security scanner and Microsoft's safety scanner, to identify and remove any nasty software the scammers might have installed on your computer: https://www.malwarebytes.com/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/safety-scanner-download?view=o365-worldwide Advice from Microsoft on what to do to protect yourself: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/protect-yourself-from-tech-support-scams-2ebf91bd-f94c-2a8a-e541-f5c800d18435 More advice on what to do: https://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-microsoft-security-alert/ If you handed over details of your bank account and credit cards, please get in touch with your bank and your credit card supplier as soon as possible and let them know what happened. There almost certainly was no purchase; it's just a story made up by scammers. When you get in touch with your credit card company, ask them to look into any unusual purchases. The Watergate book sounds interesting. I'm sure the CIA had nothing to do with this episode.
  2. For a comprehensive account of what actually happened to the film and its various copies, please see David Wrone, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, especially pages 20-74. The existence of three first-day copies, one of which is in the national archives and presumably available for inspection, seems to be the final nail in the alteration argument: If these copies were made from the original Zapruder film on the afternoon of the assassination, as solid documentary evidence confirms, the 'original' film at NARA must indeed be the original and not an altered copy, unless the hypothetical Bad Guys were stupid enough to allow the three first-day copies, which would clearly contradict their altered film, to remain at large. If, on the other hand, the copies that exist today were made from an altered Zapruder film, they cannot be the actual first-day copies that were made from the original Zapruder film, because the actual first-day copies were made on the afternoon of the assassination, before any alteration to the original film could have taken place. And if anyone is claiming that the copies which exist today were made from an altered Zapruder film, that person needs to explain what happened to the actual first-day copies, and provide documentary evidence which contradicts the existing documentary evidence relating to the history and ownership of the first-day copies (see Wrone's book for details). If anyone is claiming that the actual first-day copies were destroyed rather than altered, that person needs to explain why the original film was not also destroyed rather than altered. In other words, why did the reasoning which applied to the copies not also apply to the original film? If, on the other hand, anyone is claiming that the actual first-day copies were altered rather than destroyed, that person needs to explain the reasoning behind that crazy-sounding decision. In other words, why go to the trouble of altering four films, and hoping that the four altered films would end up looking identical, when the simpler, quicker, safer and foolproof option of destroying them was available? Once you accept that the first-day copies provide further authentication of the film that is in the archives: you can discard the NPIC event, since we know on other grounds that it almost certainly didn't involve the original film; and you can of course also discard any of the flimsy anomalies whose existence has not yet been confirmed by expert examination of the film that's in the archives (which, as far as I can tell, is every single one of them). Once you've done all of that, there's nothing left. It's now safe to use the Zapruder film to undermine the lone-nut theory!
  3. Roger admits: Sandy, too, waves the white flag: Let's look at Roger's account of the alternatives: Answer: option (2), obviously! The only change Roger has made to his argument is that the Bad Guys would not have destroyed the film "before too much was learned about it". This makes no difference to Roger's argument. The Bad Guys would have had to examine the film closely before deciding whether or not it could be altered. They would have learned as much about it as there was to learn, before starting work on any alterations (or destroying it, as the case may be). At that point, they would have needed to decide what to do. One option was so obvious that it must have occurred to them: destroy the film. The question remains: when they weighed up the pros and cons, why did they decide not to take the simplest, foolproof option? What would their reasoning have been for not taking the simplest, foolproof option? The many advantages of destroying it were unchanged, and the many disadvantages of altering it (and then hoping it might be possible to bury it) were unchanged. Merely supplying an account, as Roger does, of what the Bad Guys' decision might have been (let's alter the film, and if that doesn't work we can hide it afterwards and hope it doesn't come to light) isn't good enough. This doesn't explain why they would have chosen that option when they would have been aware of a more plausible alternative. Faced with two choices, what reasoning did they use in order to come to the decision Roger claims they came to? I'm not aware of any reasoning process that would convince them to alter the film when they had the option of destroying it. Apparently Roger and Sandy can't think of one either. Yes, but why would they have "rejected destruction in favor of trying alteration"? What was their reasoning? Roger still doesn't explain the thinking that would have led his Bad Guys to make the decision he claims they made. Here is the rest of that paragraph, which presumably contains the justification for not destroying the film: But none of that tells us what the Bad Guys' reasoning would have been. Eliminating the option of hiding the film is indeed what destroying the film would have done. It's one of the advantages of destruction over alteration. It would eliminate the risk of the film ever coming to light and revealing evidence of conspiracy which existed nowhere else, an event which we know actually happened. What reasoning would the Bad Guys have used when making that bizarre decision? Roger still doesn't tell us. Roger then deals with what might have happened once his hypothetical Bad Guys' incompetent alteration had taken place: Again, why would they have "rejected the idea to destroy the film altogether"? What was the reasoning they would have used when deciding between the two options? Yet again, Roger doesn't explain the thinking that would have led his Bad Guys to make the decision he claims they made. That's because it's a decision no-one in their right mind would have made. There was no reasoning that would have led them to make that decision. This back-up plan (hiding the film in Life's vault while making numerous copies of it) was not a realistic option. The Bad Guys must have known that the copies would circulate and that the film would come to light before too long. We can be sure that copies would have circulated and that the film would have come to light before too long, because that is what happened in reality. Second- and third-generation copies proliferated within days of the assassination; bootlegs were floating around even before the Shaw trial; and the detailed content of the film became public knowledge only 12 years after the assassination. The Bad Guys surely would have known that it was not possible to bury the film from public view permanently while allowing numerous copies of it to be made. The possibility of hiding the film as a last resort would not have made the option of altering it any more credible. The only options facing the Bad Guys in Roger's hypothetical scenario would have been: destroy the film straight away, or try to alter it, and if that failed to eliminate evidence of conspiracy, destroy the incompetently altered film. Then there's the matter of the three first-day copies. Were they altered? The Bad Guys obviously couldn't allow three films to exist in a form which would blatantly contradict their altered 'original' film.* Roger and Sandy appear to accept that the problem with the original Zapruder film also applies in the case of the three first-day copies, as Michael was helpful enough to point out. The Bad Guys would have had to deal with the fact that their lone-nut story was undermined not only by the original film but also by three good copies of the film (and by all the copies that were made from these copies within the first few days). All the disadvantages of altering the original were multiplied in the case of the three (or more) copies. It is so blindingly obvious that destroying the first-day copies would have been preferable to trying to alter them that Roger and Sandy haven't even attempted to claim that the Bad Guys would have decided to alter them. And if you're claiming that the Bad Guys would have decided to destroy the copies, why would those Bad Guys not have applied the same reasoning to the original film? * Of course, how blatant the contradictions would have been depends on the alterations that are claimed to have been made. As we have seen, no-one appears to agree on exactly which alterations were supposedly made. Nevertheless, most of the claimed alterations would be obvious when compared to an unaltered first-day copy. There's also a chance, of course, that the alterations would also be obvious when compared to any other home movie or photograph which came to light in the days, weeks, or years after the assassination, another weakness with the alteration hypothesis which hasn't been addressed.
  4. The spot-the-anomaly game just doesn't stop! Almost as soon as you've debunked one claim, someone else repeats it. Sometimes, the same person even repeats a claim that has just been debunked. On page 7, Keven Hofeling repeats a claim that he must know has already been debunked at least twice: Keven must know that this is nonsense, because I debunked it on page three of this thread in reply to Roger, and on a different thread in reply to Keven himself when he made the very same claim only a month ago. Why did he repeat a claim he knows to be factually incorrect? In case anyone is thinking of repeating the same nonsense yet again, here are some links to frames 314, 315 and 316, all of which show the "fine red mist suspended in the air" which Keven claims doesn't exist: Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg Pro-alteration folks: please bookmark those links, if only to save yourselves future embarrassment! My earlier reply to Keven, in which I debunked this claim, also provides an explanation for one of his other claims, the absence of horizontal debris in the Zapruder film.
  5. Roger writes: The point I was making was not that because Horne and White made ludicrous claims elsewhere, their Zapruder film claims should be ignored. My point was that because they made ludicrous claims elsewhere, their Zapruder film claims should not be accepted uncritically, as Roger seems to have done. One of these characters is notorious for actively promoting Lifton's body-alteration scenario, and the other character is notorious for actively promoting the faked moon landings scenario. Both scenarios are very far-fetched, and would sound laughable to any reasonable person, as would the Zapruder film-faking scenario ("So the Zapruder film was altered specifically in order to remove evidence of conspiracy, but the people who altered it didn't bother to actually remove the evidence of conspiracy? Huh? You're pulling my leg, right?"). The faked moon landings scenario is particularly relevant here, since it shares a common methodology with claims about film-fakery. Namely, the spot-the-anomaly game. The flag is moving, but there's no atmosphere on the moon, so it must be a fake! The driver's head turns much too fast, so it must be a fake! We can't see the stars, so it must be a fake! That spectator is eight feet tall, so it must be a fake! I've spotted an anomaly, so it must be a fake! It really isn't good enough just to spot an anomaly and stop there. If you're claiming that an apparent anomaly is the result of altering the Zapruder film (or an Apollo photograph), you also need to demonstrate the plausibility of the sort of alteration that would produce that apparent anomaly. And if you're claiming that there are multiple anomalies in the film, you need to come up with a coherent system of alteration that would be consistent with all of those anomalies. But that almost never happens. The Zapruder film version of the spot-the-anomaly game has been going on since the 1990s, maybe even since the 80s, and hardly any of the players even try to come up with a plausible account of how all these anomalies could have been generated. This is partly because there's no agreed list of anomalies. While one person claims that anomalies A and B exist, another person claims that anomaly A exists while anomaly B doesn't exist (and that anomalies C and D also exist). It would help if each person who enjoys playing the spot-the-anomaly game would give us a list of his or her preferred anomalies and, more importantly, describe the alteration process that would have given rise to every single one of them. Those lists would be entertaining to read! As we've seen with the two anomalies Roger provided (The car's left turn is missing! The vertical plume of brain matter is only visible in frame 313!), most or all of the supposed anomalies that have been put forward over the last three decades or more fall into two categories: they possess straightforward explanations that the spot-the-anomaly players would have worked out for themselves if only they had applied some critical thinking; or the claim simply isn't true to begin with, as in the case of Roger's claim about the invisible vertical plume which turned out to be entirely visible, but only to those of us blessed with the magical ability to actually check the evidence for ourselves. It's just a game. It demeans a serious historical event, and it allows supporters of the lone-nut theory to claim that not only the anomaly-spotters but also rational critics of the lone-nut theory are no different from moon-landings deniers.
  6. Roger continues: and and No, we don't know that, as I've tried to explain several times now! That is one possible interpretation of someone's recollections from several decades later. The other possible interpretation, supported by much stronger evidence than flimsy decades-old recollections, is that it was two copies, not one original, that were worked on that weekend. In reality, the original film was sent to Life's photo lab in Chicago, not to NPIC. Here, since Roger still doesn't seem to have read it, is Zavada's account which includes his reasons for claiming that the films are likely to have been copies and not the original: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf I assume Roger understands that once you let go of the unfounded assumption that someone's 30- or 40-year-old recollections cannot possibly be mistaken, the whole film-fakery scenario unravels. If the original film was not sent to NPIC, no coherent argument for alteration exists. Roger must surely accept that 30- or 40-year-old recollections can very easily be mistaken. Let go, Roger! You can do it! I can't argue with that hypothetical scenario, except that it still relies on two assumptions, namely that the Bad Guys: had control of the film; and wanted everyone to think that a lone nut assassinated JFK. But it is quite conceivable that: whoever was behind the assassination might not have had control of the Zapruder film, let alone all the other home movies and photographs; whether they controlled the images or not, they might not have cared in the slightest that evidence of conspiracy existed; indeed, evidence of conspiracy might have been just what they wanted the public to be aware of (if, for example, they wanted the blame to fall on the Cuban or Soviet regimes, which is not an unreasonable assumption, given that the eventual patsy had prima facie connections with both regimes). In which case, two conclusions follow: If the Bad Guys didn't control the film, altering the film would not have been possible. If the Bad Guys were happy with the public knowing that the assassination was a conspiracy, the Bad Guys wouldn't even have wanted to alter the film. But that's a separate topic. If the original film wasn't sent there in the first place, there's nothing to explain. For the umpteenth time, please read the PDF I've just linked to. Or read David Wrone's book, details of which I'll provide later. Again, Roger is getting worked up about a problem that vanishes if the original film wasn't sent to NPIC. In that case, there would have been no need to publicly name any individual at any top-secret photo lab. Let go of those flimsy recollections, Roger! In reality, the film was sent to Life's photo lab in Chicago, where a technician damaged it. If the Bad Guys really had wanted to destroy the film, they could surely have explained its destruction using a scenario along the lines of what really happened: "Sorry, people, but the film was sent to [insert name of location; e.g. Life's photo lab in Chicago], where a technician accidentally damaged it so badly that none of the frames showing JFK getting shot were usable. But we've managed to salvage the pictures of Zapruder's grandkids!" Or they could have put forward any other semi-plausible excuse they could think of. Not only would destroying the film have been a trivial thing to do, but explaining its destruction would have been no big deal either.
  7. First of all, apologies for dumping several days' worth of posts on you all at once. A certain trigger-happy moderator sent me to the sin bin again, for four days this time. During my absence, Roger Odisio wrote: I'd answered that already, several times. But I'll try again. Let's accept for the purpose of this discussion Roger's premise that the people who were behind the assassination: had control of the Zapruder film; and wanted the public to think that the assassination was the work of a lone nut, so that the Bad Guys would get away with the murder. Of course, both of these premises are speculative, but let's go with them for the time being. How would the Bad Guys solve the problem of a home movie which undermined their preferred lone-nut scenario and prevented them getting away with the murder? The answer is obvious: destroy the film! As I've tried to explain, this solution would be easy to do and it would be foolproof, eliminating the problem completely. The only downside was that it would generate public suspicion of a cover-up. Against this, altering the film: would be difficult and time-consuming; might not eliminate the problem at all if it was not possible to remove every incriminating feature; and would cause severe additional problems if the altered film was contradicted by other films and photographs, many of which were not known about until long after the alterations were supposed to have taken place. There's no contest, is there?
  8. Paul Bacon writes: Paul Rigby implies that it was, when he mentioned "the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film". If the masterminds had recruited Abraham Zapruder into their plot, they would have known that his film would contain evidence which undermined the lone-nut story. But even if the hypothetical decision to alter the film was made after copies had been made from the original, the problem remains. What happened to the first-day copies? Were they altered along with the original film, or were they destroyed? What decision would the masterminds have taken regarding the first-day copies? More importantly, what was the reasoning behind that decision? Those masterminds were left with the same easy choice: Should we go to a lot of trouble to alter three more films, with the risk that those films will retain evidence of conspiracy? Or should we take the simpler, quicker, safer and foolproof option of destroying them and making replacement copies later? They would have chosen the second option, wouldn't they? And if they took the easier option for the first-day copies, why would they not have made the same decision about the original film?
  9. It's all about the thought processes of those hypothetical masterminds. Let's compare the reasoning for each potential course of action: Alter the film: We have control over a home movie which exposes our dastardly scheme to kill JFK and blame it on a lone nut. We want to prevent the public seeing the evidence contained in this home movie. We could achieve this aim by altering the film to remove or doctor the parts which contradict our lone-nut story. Before deciding whether or not to do this, we need to weigh up the pros and cons of altering the film. The first advantage of altering the film: if we do it properly, the evidence it contains will vanish for ever, and we can guarantee that this particular home movie will never be able to contradict our lone-nut story. The second advantage of altering the film: er ... there isn't one. The first negative consequence of altering the film: it may not be possible to alter the film satisfactorily, in which case it will continue to contain evidence that contradicts our lone-nut story, such as the 'back and to the left' head movement, the speed of the car along Elm Street, and the reactions of JFK and Connally, each of which would reveal our dastardly plan; and we would have wasted a lot of time and effort. The second negative consequence of altering the film: some necessary alterations may be physically impossible to achieve; we are in 1963, remember. The third negative consequence of altering the film: it will be a time-consuming thing to do. The fourth negative consequence of altering the film: before we even start work on altering the film, we would have to sit down and decide which parts need to be altered, and how to perform those alterations. The fifth negative consequence of altering the film: before or after we sit down and decide which bits need to be altered and how to perform those alterations, we would have to fly the film all the way to some top-secret lab at the other end of the country. The sixth negative consequence of altering the film: numerous other home movies or photographs were taken in Dealey Plaza, any number of which might contradict any of the alterations we make to the film, thereby exposing our dastardly plan, with serious repercussions for us, unless we track down those home movies and photographs and alter the ones that contradict our first round of alterations. The seventh negative consequence of altering the film: if another home movie or photograph that we don't know about now comes along in the future and turns out to contradict any of the the first round of alterations we make in the film or the second round of alterations we make to the other films and photos that we already know about, our dastardly plan will be exposed, with serious repercussions for us, and we won't be able to do anything about it. The eighth negative consequence of altering the film: doing so will involve the resources of a film-processing laboratory and numerous people, which would create a risk of someone giving the game away in the future. The ninth negative consequence of altering the film: tracking down and altering other home movies and photographs will also involve the resources of a film-processing laboratory and many more people, which would increase the risk of someone giving the game away in the future. Let's alter the film! Destroy the film: We have control over a home movie which exposes our dastardly scheme to kill JFK and blame it on a lone nut. We want to prevent the public seeing the evidence contained in this home movie. We could achieve this aim by destroying the film. Before deciding whether or not to do this, we need to weigh up the pros and cons of destroying the film. The first advantage of destroying the film: the evidence it contains will vanish for ever, and we can guarantee that this home movie will never be able to contradict our lone-nut story. The second advantage of destroying the film: it's very easy to do. The third advantage of destroying the film: it's very quick to do; we wouldn't need to fly the film all the way to some top-secret lab at the other end of the country. The fourth advantage of destroying the film: there is no chance at all that our destruction of the film will be exposed by any other home movies or photographs which exist now or which come to light in the future. The fifth advantage of destroying the film: it could be done by one person, keeping to a minimum the chance that anyone might give the game away in the future. The first negative consequence of destroying the film: we will get some serious egg on our faces from people who suspect that we are participating in a cover-up. The second negative consequence of destroying the film: er ... there isn't one. Let's destroy the film! Remember: if the masterminds gave any thought to either altering or destroying the film, they must have worked out the implications of each course of action, and they would have come up with some reasoning along these lines. Now, which of these scenarios is the more plausible?
  10. In response to my question about why the supposed masterminds would have decided to alter the film rather than simply destroying it, Sandy writes: That doesn't answer the question, which was about the masterminds' reasoning which supposedly led them to choose alteration over destruction. Why was it that "the coverup artists did the quick alterations" when they had the opportunity to destroy the film? There was no need to alter it and "hope that that would be sufficient in convincing the public" of anything. Destroying the film was easier, quicker and certain to succeed in eliminating the evidence they wanted to hide; no "hoping" was required. The only negative consequence would have been public embarrassment. What was the reasoning which supposedly produced a bizarre decision instead of a rational one?
  11. Michael Crane writes: I think the claim under discussion is that the hypothetical decision to alter the film was made before the original film was copied. But we have good documentary evidence that three copies were in fact made on the afternoon of the assassination, more than 24 hours before any alterations are claimed to have been performed. How do we reconcile the existence of these copies with the claim that the original film wasn't altered until a day or two later? Is the claim now that the copies were altered too? If so, when and where did this happen? Please provide all the evidence you have that alterations have been made to the first-day copies that are in existence today. If, as I suspect, there is no evidence that the existing copies have been altered, the claim now must be that the masterminds didn't alter the first-day copies but instead destroyed them, with new copies being made from the altered original some time later. Of course, in this case the masterminds would have made the correct decision: it would be far easier, safer, and more foolproof to destroy the first-day copies than alter them. In which case, the argument returns to bite these claimants on their rear ends. Since it would have been easier to destroy the copies than alter them, why would it not also have been easier to destroy the original than alter it?
  12. Roger Odisio writes: Destroying a short reel of 16mm (double-eight) film doesn't sound like a particularly difficult thing to do. I suppose you could wrap it in old newspaper and put it in a bin, and it would end up in landfill, where it would rot. You could cut it into tiny pieces and put the pieces into several bins. You could burn it. You could wrap it around a brick and drop it in the ocean. You could dissolve it in acid. I'm sure you can think of numerous ways to dispose of a troublesome reel of 16mm film. As for who would take the blame, just pick on some anonymous lab technician. After all, in reality the original Zapruder film was damaged by an anonymous lab technician in Chicago, so the claim would be plausible.
  13. Roger Odisio writes: No. I explained why the film at NARA must be the original. Please read my comment again. No. I didn't merely assert that the film at NARA is the original. I explained why it is the original. Please read my comment again. Did they examine the film that is in the archives? I suspect they didn't; but if they did, what reasons did they give to show that Zavada's explanation was incorrect? Jack White! He thought that the moon landings were faked, that no planes hit the World Trade Center, that Oswald and his mother were each a pair of doppelgängers, that photos of the sixth floor rifle taken from slightly different angles were actually of separate rifles, as well as all sorts of other crazy stuff. Not only was White spectacularly wrong about all of those things and no doubt much more, but he was wrong when he claimed (according to Roger's quotation): Zavada didn't just claim that the film in the archives was authentic, he gave technical reasons which demonstrated why it was authentic. Since Roger doesn't seem to have read that part, here it is again: Copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film will inevitably generate defects in the copy: increased contrast, increased grain size, and colour distortion. The film in the archives contains none of these defects. It must therefore be the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera. It follows that no alterations can have been made which required the original film to be copied. See: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Jack White's objection does not overcome Zavada's claim. Until someone with adequate credentials inspects the film that's in the archives, and provides good evidence that it isn't the original, we must assume that Zavada was right. I've no reason to suppose that he was lying, just that his 30-year-old recollections were mistaken, as 30-year-old recollections often are. Anything that doesn't match what we see in the original Zapruder film that's in the archives. Zavada provides a perfectly plausible alternative explanation for what happened at NPIC. There's no need to accept Brugioni's more far-fetched version. And I explained why destruction was the only logical choice, in the hypothetical scenario Roger describes. I dealt with Roger's original claim in my first reply. Here's Roger's claim: But alteration would not have been the only way "to keep the story they were already going with from imploding". Destroying the film would also do the job, and would do so with more certainty of success, no real risk of failure, and with no serious consequences. Roger didn't explain why those masterminds would have decided to alter the film instead of destroying it. He simply asserted that that's what they did, on the basis of flimsy evidence such as Brugioni's 30-year-old recollections and a bunch of trivial anomalies. Here's my question again: If, as Roger assumes, the masterminds had control of a film which seriously undermined their case; and if they were able to eliminate this evidence simply by destroying the film; and if the only consequence they would suffer by doing so was public embarrassment; and if they understood that it might not be possible to alter the film properly, and that the film would still contain evidence that undermined their case; what thought processes made them decide not to destroy the film but instead to try to alter it?
  14. Sandy Larsen writes: No, it's the sequence of events which Sandy and Roger imply actually happened. No-one would have done that. But that evidence doesn't amount to anything. It's just 30-year-old recollections and some trivial apparent anomalies in a home movie. If, as appears to be the case, plausible alternative explanations exist for these things, such evidence is weak. The question I asked, and which still hasn't been satisfactorily answered, is: what good reason would the masterminds have for not destroying a piece of evidence which (according to Sandy and Roger) they controlled and which seriously undermined the story they wanted the public to believe? In other words, why did they decide keep the film once they became aware that it contradicted their story? What was their thought process?
  15. Michael Crane writes: No, unjustified preconceptions tell you that it's gone. Common sense tells you to look at the evidence, and the evidence which I provided tells you that it still exists. If you can provide a source who (a) is at least as authoritative as Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, and (b) has inspected the film in the archives, and (c) can explain why Zavada and Fielding were mistaken, please go ahead. If you can't, we are obliged to believe that the Zapruder film that's in the National Archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. This is like arguing with a cardboard cut-out! The claim about the left turn being deleted was dealt with in my previous comment. Perhaps Michael could explain to us why anyone would have wanted to delete that part of the Zapruder film. Paul and Denise suggested that it was because the shooting had already started at the time of the car's turn onto Elm Street. I pointed out that there is no good evidence that this happened, and plenty of good evidence that it didn't happen, such as the hundreds of witnesses who would have seen and heard it but who failed to mention it. It's a crazy suggestion; the shooting didn't in fact start until the car was some way along Elm Street. Can Michael think of a less crazy one? If not, the problem disappears: no-one deleted the car's left turn from the Zapruder film because Zapruder didn't actually film the car turning left. On the topic of crazy suggestions, I've just had another look at Paul's comment on page 3 and noticed this gem: Zapruder was part of the plot! I'd be interested to hear not only what evidence Paul has to support that claim but also how that scenario was supposed to work: The masterminds decide to get a local clothing manufacturer to film the motorcade for no obvious reason; the masterminds fail to predict that the clothing manufacturer's film would contradict their lone-nut story; the clothing manufacturer films the assassination, and his film does indeed contradict the masterminds' lone-nut story; the masterminds decide for no good reason not to cut their losses and destroy the film they had commissioned; instead, they decide to alter the film, in order to remove the incriminating parts; while altering the film to remove the incriminating parts, they forget to actually remove the incriminating parts; again they decide not to destroy the film that still undermines their story even after having been incompetently altered; instead, they allow bootleg copies of the film to be viewed by thousands of people; then they allow millions of people to view the actual film on TV; and it becomes common knowledge among the general public that the lone-nut story doesn't hold up. It doesn't look like a watertight plan to me.
  16. Let's go through the various points that have been made: Claim 1 - The original Zapruder doesn't exist. Michael Crane writes: Notice the lack of evidence Michael produces to justify his assertion. What we do have good evidence for is the claim that the original film does exist. It's in the National Archives. Roland Zavada, in his reply to Douglas Horne, points out that if the Kodachrome film currently in the archives is a copy, it will contain certain features which are always generated by the process of copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film. The copy will contain increased contrast, increased grain size, and colour distortion. According to Zavada and Prof. Raymond Fielding, who have examined that film, it contains none of these features. It has to be the original. Zavada was heavily involved in the creation of Kodachrome film when he worked for Kodak, and must know what he's talking about. Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that the lizard people got to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse, or that the known laws of physics were miraculously suspended on the occasion Zavada inspected the film. But in the absence of any evidence that either of these things happened, the current state of play is that the Kodachrome film in the archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Since the film in the archives is not a copy, all of the proposed alterations which required the film to have been copied, cannot have happened. Realistically, the only alteration that is still plausible is that the blob on the back of JFK's head was painted in. If anyone wants to maintain that the blob was painted in, they should get hold of someone with the appropriate credentials, and inspect the film that is in the archives. Likewise, if anyone wants to claim that Zavada was mistaken and that the film is a copy, they should again get hold of an expert and inspect the film. Then let us know what the expert says. Here's Zavada's reply to Horne. Please read it this time: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Claim 2 - Brugioni's 30-year-old or 40-year-old recollections were accurate. Repeating the scenario which requires Brugioni's recollections to be accurate, does not support the claim that those recollections were accurate. Zavada's objections to Brugioni's claims still stand. It is an uncontroversial fact that people get stuff wrong when recalling events from decades earlier. Claim 3 - Life, or Time/Life, had links to the CIA. I can't argue with that. But this demonstrates only that Life might have done what it did after consultation with the CIA. It's quite possible that the CIA prompted Life to do what actually happened: buy the film and keep it (more or less) locked away until 1975. Claim 4 - Life (or the CIA, or anyone else who controlled the film) would not have destroyed the film, because ... Roger does not address the question I asked. He merely repeats his claim: Sandy agrees: There is no logic in: trying alteration; seeing that it doesn't work; deciding at that point not to destroy the film; retaining a film which contradicts the lone-nut story; and finally making that film available for public viewing. If you have control over a piece of physical evidence which seriously undermines your case, and the only way to be sure that this evidence would not become public is to destroy it, and if it is a simple task to destroy that piece of evidence, you would destroy it. Wouldn't you? Nor is it logical, in the hypothetical scenario I put forward (let's imagine that the film contained evidence of conspiracy that really could not be explained away), to do anything other than destroy the film. This would absolutely eliminate any possibility that the film could contradict the lone-nut story. The only cost would be public embarrassment. If Life (or whoever) understood that the film contained evidence that contradicted the lone-nut story, why would they not have destroyed the film? Please answer the question this time. Claim 5 - The car's turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street was deleted from the film because the shooting had already started by then. What evidence is there that the first shot was fired before or during the car's left turn? Paul supplies a newspaper report which claims that "the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston" and another report which claims that "As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway ... At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper ... fired his cheap rifle." But Paul's two newspaper reports are from five days after the assassination, and were clearly ill-informed and speculative. Denise, on the other hand, claims that the first shot took place "just after the limousine had turned the corner onto Elm", presumably so close to the turn that deletion was required. How many spectators claimed that the shooting began that early? Why did hundreds of people who would have seen and heard it not report such a thing? Were they all bribed or blackmailed? Why did spectators along the first part of Elm Street report seeing JFK smiling and waving to the crowd, apparently uninjured? Why do images exist which corroborate these witnesses? The shooting did not start until the car had travelled some distance along Elm Street. That can't be the reason the car's left turn was deleted. What actual evidence is there that the car's left turn was deleted from the film? The claim that the left turn was deleted rests on Zapruder's statement that he didn't stop filming. But the evidence shows that he did stop filming. He, like all human beings, made a mistake when recollecting something. The left turn wasn't deleted. Zapruder simply stopped filming when he realised that JFK's car wasn't at the very front of the motorcade, and didn't start filming again until the car was on Elm Street.
  17. Roger Odisio writes: Yes, the Zapruder film does expose the story as false, as I explain below. I don't think this claim stands up. Roger doesn't explain why it wasn't possible to accidentally destroy or lose the film. His reasons appear to be contained in the following paragraph: But none of this explains why Life or anyone else who had possession of the original film would not have been able to accidentally-on-purpose destroy the film. After all, films do sometimes get damaged during processing. A good example would of course be the Zapruder film itself, which did in fact suffer damage from genuinely incompetent handling by a technician. No doubt Life would have suffered public embarrassment if it had claimed that a crucial section of the film, or even the whole film, had accidentally been destroyed or damaged beyond repair, or claimed that it had lost the film in transit or allowed the film to be stolen by a souvenir hunter, or whatever other the-dog-ate-my-homework story it came up with. But that would be a small price to pay to prevent an incriminating film being seen by the general public. Alternatively, Life could have put the film in its vault, keeping it largely but not entirely out of public view for over a decade until the immediate fuss died down, which is in fact what happened. Plenty of bootlegs were in circulation after the Shaw trial, and many thousands of people saw the film, but its implications did not become widely known among the general public until millions of people saw the TV broadcast in 1975. Keeping the film largely hidden away was an effective solution to the problem of the incriminating evidence it contained. That claim only works if you take the Horne/Brugioni story seriously. But recollections three or four decades after the event are flimsy evidence, and Horne's account of anything should be taken with a large helping of salt; he's the guy who tried to derail the ARRB by promoting Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! Roland Zavada takes Horne to pieces in the following PDF, and points out that the film Brugioni dealt with was more likely to be one of the FBI copies than the original, which did indeed get sent to Chicago. Zavada makes two important points: there was insufficient time to perform the alterations in question, and the film that exists today is the actual piece of film that was in Zapruder's camera (which rules out any alterations that required the film to be copied): http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf As much as I dislike using McAdams's favourite word, this claim is a factoid that keeps cropping up and is easily disproved (I think Horne is to blame for putting this particular idea in people's heads). Even a relatively poor-quality copy of the film shows a vertical plume of brain matter for several frames after frame 313: Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg A better-quality copy may well depict the plume in further frames. Numerous other supposed anomalies have been brought up over the past 20 years or more (Conclusive proof! At last!), only to fall apart at the first hint of skeptical examination (Drat!), as Josiah Thompson recounts here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html Because the original film, the one which exists today, contradicts the lone-nut theory: We see JFK and Connally reacting separately to their non-fatal wounds, as Connally himself insisted. The Zapruder film is the only item of evidence which demonstrates that these non-fatal wounds were too far apart in time to have been caused by one bullet, and too close in time to have been caused by two bullets fired from the sixth-floor rifle. The Zapruder film is the only item of evidence which allows us to calculate how much time the car took to travel along Elm Street. The film limits the amount of time available for three shots to have been fired. It is the film which makes it next to impossible for a lone nut to have loaded, aimed, and fired three shots. Without the Zapruder film, it would be possible to claim that the car's speed just happened to match however long it took for a lone, out-of-practice gunman to load his rickety old rifle, aim carefully, fire the first shot, reload, aim carefully, fire the second shot, reload, aim carefully, and fire the third shot. Three shots, comfortably spaced: the first hits JFK in the back, the second hits Connally in the back, and the third hits JFK in the head. Without the Zapruder film, there would have been no need for all those expert gunmen to try and fail to do what the lone nut is supposed to have done. Without the Zapruder film, there would have been no need to invent the ludicrous single-bullet theory. Destroy the Zapruder film before it beomes available for public inspection, and the lone-nut theory becomes plausible. It can't have been any of the supposedly altered parts which induced the gasps. By definition, altering the film would have removed evidence of conspiracy, such the hugely incriminating 'back and to the left' head movement which the forgers somehow neglected to remove. The gasps must have been at least partly due to seeing that 'back and to the left' head movement, which the audience no doubt interpreted as the result of a shot from the front. With an altered film, the only element that would have induced gasps would have been the sight of someone getting shot in the head. People have been bringing up this point for years, without explaining why the sight of a car turning left was so incriminating that it had to be removed from a home movie. I mean, cars turn left sometimes. There's really nothing remarkable about it. And there's a perfectly plausible explanation for the discrepancy in Zapruder's statement. If Zapruder recalled that he hadn't stopped filming, but the film shows that he had stopped filming, it's vastly more likely that he was mistaken than that anyone went to all the trouble of removing the car's left turn from his home movie for no obvious reason. Again, this is just one of numerous empty claims about alteration, claims for which obvious everyday explanations exist. Witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes. There are threads on this forum which discuss pretty much every supposed anomaly you can think of. Rather than go over all those claims for the umpteenth time, I'd like Roger or anyone else to deal with what appears to be the weakest part of his argument. Let's assume that the Zapruder film not only contradicted the lone-nut theory, but contained evidence so blatant that the authorities couldn't possibly explain it away. Why would the authorities not simply have destroyed the film? As I pointed out, destroying the film would have caused them embarrassment and raised suspicions of a cover-up, but it would definitively have eliminated any possible harm that the Zapruder film could have caused to their theory. Apart from the egg-on-face factor, why would they not have accidentally-on-purpose destroyed the film?
  18. Matt Allison writes: My comment wasn't aimed at any one person, and certainly not at Matt in particular. Anyone who has been following the alteration debate for years will be aware that numerous claims have been made, based on different apparent anomalies in different copies of the film. There appears to be no agreement about which parts of the film are supposed to have been altered, or why, or how. If the general claim that the film has been altered is to be taken seriously by anyone outside the JFK assassination bubble, there really needs to be some agreement about the alterations that were supposedly made. Without agreement, it's just the usual pointless game of spot-the-anomaly that has been going on for over 20 years. When an anomaly exists in one copy of an image but not in another, it will almost certainly be an innocent artefact of the copying process. As with every apparent anomaly, all we have to go on here is a digital copy of an analogue film. It is an uncontroversial fact that when a copy is made of an analogue film, information will be lost and anomalous artefacts are likely to be generated. This particular digital copy is probably several generations removed from the original image, and will not be a flawless representation of the original image. This copy comes from people who have an interest in identifying anomalies in this area of the film. They may have edited the frame by increasing the contrast in certain areas, thereby producing excessively dark patches with unrealistically sharp boundaries, as we see with the back of the head and the underside of the sleeve. If I had to guess, I'd say that if someone spots a dark blob where there shouldn't be a dark blob, that dark blob is most likely to be a product of the copying process. Since one common artefact of the copying process is an increase in contrast in dark areas, and since this part of the image is of dark hair in shadow, this particular dark blob might well be an artefact accidentally introduced during the copying process, and perhaps exaggerated during the editing process. But maybe it isn't. Maybe it's the product of deliberate alteration. The only way to know for sure that this particular dark blob is not an artefact is to examine the original film. That's a task for those who claim that the film has been altered.
  19. Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy's idea of what constitutes proof is somewhat looser than most people's. Take his "proof positive that one or both the [Zapruder and Nix] films have been altered": https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/ That claim, from two years ago, was debunked within minutes of going online. The anomaly in question turned out to be an obvious example of the parallax effect. You'd think Sandy would have learned not to use phrases like "proof positive" and "indisputably proven".
  20. Jonathan Cohen writes: One thing the pro-alteration claimants really need to do is get their heads together and come up with a set of claims they all agree on. If you look at James 'Sandy Hook' Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, which came out in 2003, you'll find all sorts of claims made. Other sources make other claims, while ignoring some of the claims made elsewhere. Come on, make your minds up! If alterationist A makes a claim but alterationist B doesn't believe it, why be surprised when the rest of us don't take it seriously either? Anyone who has been following this debate will have noted the general level of amateurishness involved. This bit of the film contradicts what this witness said, so it must be a fake! That bit of the film looks a bit funny to me, so it must be a fake! The whole debate gives the impression of being just a game of moon-landings-style spot-the-anomaly rather than serious research. To get over this problem, let's see a bit of consistency and joined-up thinking. Exactly which parts of the film were altered, and why? The three main claims that come to mind are: the popular black blob covering up a back-of-the-head wound; the claim that frames were removed to hide an incriminating car stop; and that other frames were removed to hide the car's incriminating (why?) turn onto Elm Street. So was it just this part that was faked? Or was it just that other part that was faked? Or were they both faked? Or are those two parts authentic but some other part was faked? Or was the entire film fabricated from scratch (as is claimed on page 181 of Fetzer's book)? For each specific claim, what would have been the rationale? Why would anyone go to the trouble of faking this part while leaving that incriminating part intact? And why does at least one claim of alteration have the effect of making the lone-nut claim more rather than less plausible? I'm thinking here of the claim that frames were removed which showed the car moving along Elm Street before the head shot. Without the Zapruder film's timing of the car's progress along the road, there is no constraint on the amount of time required to fire three shots from the sixth-floor rifle. Then you need to agree on the evidence for alteration. Which of the apparent anomalies in the film are the result of alteration, and which have plausible non-conspiratorial explanations? If an apparent anomaly has a plausible everyday explanation, but you prefer an inherently less plausible pro-alteration explanation, why do you do this? Pro-alteration claimants also need to come up with, and agree on, a plausible account for each apparent anomaly. If the film shows Mary Moorman standing on the grass when she should have been standing in the street, or this or that road sign in a strange position, or that back-to-front car on Houston Street, or this seven-foot-tall spectator, what type of alteration must have been made to produce that particular anomaly? And what good reason would there have been for making that particular anomaly-producing alteration? Jonathan's remark about the lack of peer review is a good one. Once you have agreed on what's fake and what isn't, get your evidence together, write an article, and submit it to a serious scientific journal. Then, if your article gets rejected, let us know the reasons that were given for its rejection. And before anyone claims that no serious scientific journal would accept an article critical of the lone-nut view, look at the examples of the Journal of Forensic Sciences and the Annals of Applied Statistics, each of which published articles that seriously undermined the HSCA's use of neutron activation analysis. But just to start with: get your heads together and tell us definitively which parts of the film were altered and which parts weren't.
  21. Sandy Larsen writes: Of course people will define this term in different ways, as people do with all sorts of other terms. Political terms are a good example: 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are used in so many different ways that it's often difficult to tell what someone means when they use these terms. But it's still possible to find an objective definition which creates a useful distinction. In the case of 'left-wing' and 'right-wing', such a definition might refer to objectively defined principles rather than any one person's subjective opinion about something. In the case of 'far-fetched', we should use the objective definition I gave in my reply to John, unless Sandy can think of a better objective definition. Yes, it would. If it has been demonstrated that a type of event has occurred, any claim that a very similar type of event has occurred would not be inherently far-fetched, although of course the claim would still require proof before being accepted. And even if a previous example had not been demonstrated, a claim should no longer be considered far-fetched if sufficient evidence has been provided that would convince a community of reasonable people that the claim was justified. In the case of 'Harvey and Lee', however, no previous examples exist. No-one has demonstrated that any intelligence agency has ever set up a long-term doppelgänger project involving two unrelated boys, or anything close to it. The claim is inherently far-fetched. The evidence that has been produced for the 'Harvey and Lee' mother-and-son doppelgänger project, over the last two decades or more, has failed to satisfy any but a very small proportion of JFK assassination enthusiasts, a group which would take the claim seriously if it had any merit. I dread to think what the general public would make of it. As with the claim that the moon landings were faked, the 'Harvey and Lee' claim was objectively far-fetched to begin with, and it remains objectively far-fetched, no matter how plausible its few believers consider it to be.
  22. Now let's see how this definition applies to three of the essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' claim: 1 - The CIA recruited two unrelated boys, one American and one from eastern Europe, in the hope that when they had grown up, a decade or so later, they would resemble each other so closely that they would be mistaken for each other. This claim is far-fetched because it proposes two things which are very unlikely to have happened. Firstly, it is a fact that as two unrelated boys get older, the differences in their physical features are much more likely to increase than to decrease or remain the same. The more distinct the unrelated boys' features were at the beginning of the scheme, and the longer the scheme continued, the greater the boys' eventual physical differences were likely to be, and the less likely it is that the scheme would succeed. Secondly, because intelligence agencies operate according to rational organisational rules, it is far-fetched to suppose that the CIA or any other intelligence agency would have committed itself to a decade's worth of trouble and expense for a scheme with an extremely low chance of success. To give itself a reasonable chance of success, the CIA would have had to set up numerous such schemes, in the hope that one of them would work. But the more such schemes the CIA would have set up, the more failed schemes there would have been, the more trouble and expense it would have had to waste, and the more far-fetched the claim becomes. 2 - The CIA's purpose in setting up this scheme was to produce someone with an authentic-looking American background who knew enough Russian to be able to understand what was being said around him when he defected, a decade or more later. It would be obvious to any reasonable person that the CIA could accomplish its purpose much more easily, and much more quickly, and at a much lower financial cost, and with a much greater chance of success, simply by: recruiting someone with a genuine American background who had a knack for learning languages; and making sure that this person acquired a sufficient amount of competence in Russian. It is far-fetched to claim that a large organisation would prefer a scheme with a very low chance of success over a scheme with a very high chance of success. 3 - The CIA recruited the eastern European boy specifically for his native command of Russian, but during the course of the scheme, while the boy was under its care, the CIA allowed the boy to forget so much of his Russian that he was obliged to learn the language all over again. It is not merely far-fetched but laughably preposterous to claim that the CIA would allow the boy to forget his native language, the very skill for which he was recruited in the first place. This claim requires the CIA to be absurdly incompetent. A reasonable, intelligent member of the public, with no preconceived ideas about the assassination, would find the central elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' notion to be inherently very far-fetched indeed. It isn't surprising that the vast majority of serious researchers also consider the notion to be too far-fetched to be worthy of belief. Not only are the claims far-fetched to begin with, but they remain far-fetched because no direct evidence exists to support them. Although numerous records have become available from intelligence agencies during the period in question, there appears to be no direct evidence at all that any intelligence agency in the world has even considered the possibility of setting up a far-fetched H&L-type scheme: No memos exist which propose such a scheme. No documents exist which give approval to the non-existent proposal. No documents exist which discuss the search for candidate doppelgänger boys and their doppelgänger mothers. No financial records exist for any such decade-long schemes which would have involved numerous support staff. No memos exist which ask why a Russian-speaking boy was allowed to forget his native language and was then obliged to learn it all over again. Finally, the claims remain far-fetched because they are supported only by circumstantial evidence which does not apply uniquely to the claim in question: anomalies in written documents and photographs, and decades-old recollections. Any reasonable person knows that plausible alternative explanations exist for these types of evidence. Written documents often include mistakes, typos and other inaccuracies, as well as ambiguous information which is open to more than one interpretation. Copies of photographs often generate visual anomalies. Decades-old recollections are often mistaken.
  23. John Kowalski writes: Of course! A claim is inherently far-fetched if it proposes something that is not known to have happened before, or which contradicts our current understanding of how the world works, or for which no plausible mechanism has yet been identified. Claim: 'JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy' = not far-fetched, because there are numerous examples of political figures who have been killed as the result of conspiracies. Claim: 'JFK was killed by creatures from the planet Zog' = far-fetched, because there is currently no evidence that creatures from the planet Zog exist. Of course, if sufficient evidence is produced, an apparently far-fetched claim will turn into a plausible claim. Plenty of far-fetched claims have turned into plausible claims, once sufficient evidence has been produced. But you need a higher standard of evidence to justify an inherently far-fetched claim than an inherently plausible claim.
  24. Just for my own amusement, I copied and pasted Keven's last post into a text editor, to find out how many words there were. The figure I was given was 9,320. Handy hint: almost no-one will bother to read a forum comment that's 9,320 words long, or even a small fraction of that. You're weakening your case, not strengthening it, by posting such long comments. It's much more effective to provide links, with summaries if necessary. End of handy hint.
  25. Michael Griffiths writes: The school records storm-in-a-tea-cup has been covered numerous times here and elsewhere. These threads should provide a useful introduction: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1444-the-stripling-bullshit-rears-its-ugly-head-again https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ The last of these links illustrates why no-one should take any of Armstrong's claims at face value, let alone his claims about witnesses seeing Oswald at a school he never attended. As for the Hoover memo, it's just a misunderstanding. Hoover was referring to the possibility of Oswald's birth certificate getting into the hands of the Soviet regime, not to any mythical long-term double-doppelgänger projects by US intelligence. See: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush#36818
×
×
  • Create New...