Jeremy Bojczuk

Kevin Balch writes: Two good points there! Paul Bacon's reply should be interesting to read, if he can think of a way to rescue Brugioni's decades-after-the-event recollections. If he can't, I assume he will be brave enough to admit that Brugioni, like everyone else, was liable to misremember details of an event which happened decades earlier, and that those recollections are flimsy evidence for something as potentially important as the topic of this thread. Kevin's points need to be addressed by the everything-is-a-fake brigade. If you claim that Brugioni's recollections must have been accurate, how do you account for those parts which contradict your pet belief?

I see the copy-and-paste guy is back again! Keven appears to be worked up about comments I made back in January and February. That's been festering away for some time, hasn't it? Keven writes: Brain matter is visible even in relatively poor-quality copies of frames 313, 314, 315, and 316. Here we are again: 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 If Keven is claiming that the brain matter must have taken longer to disperse than we see in the film, he needs to produce some evidence and argument to justify that claim. Until he does so, it's just an empty assertion. As far as I'm aware, none of the people Keven mentions are "lone nutter advocates". This is an accusation which other everything-is-a-fake advocates have made in the past, and which tells us something about their mentality. Keven seems to think that the only alternative to the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself interpretation is that there was a massive conspiracy by all-powerful Bad Guys who faked the evidence on a scale never seen in any assassination before or since. As I asked earlier, is there evidence that anything like the alteration of the Zapruder film has ever happened in any other assassination since the advent of photography? No such evidence has yet been produced. I'm sorry to disappoint Keven, but it's perfectly possible for a group of conspirators to assassinate a politician without going on to fake a load of evidence, let alone faking the single most important piece of evidence which demonstrates the existence of that conspiracy. No, there is no circular reasoning involved. No-one is claiming that "the altered evidence itself [corroborates] the very same altered evidence". The claim is in two parts: the evidence that has been put forward is insufficient to demonstrate alteration (for example, it is uncontroversial that eye-witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes), and superior evidence demonstrates that the film hasn't been altered (for example, the fact that the film in the national archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination). Keven fails to understand the point I made several months ago (has this really been bubbling away inside his head since January?). During each exposure cycle of Zapruder's camera, the shutter was closed for slightly longer than it was open. The amount of time the shutter was closed between frames 313 and 314 was more than enough for any horizontal debris to fly out of sight; for details, see my comment from January. The fact that the film didn't capture any horizontal debris does not imply that the film was altered. It's interesting that Keven hasn't actually put forward an actual argument against the point I made. He merely copies and pastes accounts by people who were hit by brain matter, without explaining why those accounts require the film to have been altered. Of course, those accounts are perfectly compatible with an unaltered film. Here is Keven's homework for tonight: Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that "the pink cloud dissipates at an artificially rapid rate". Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that the Zapruder film must have captured any horizontal debris. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that anyone who questions the everything-is-a-fake nonsense must be a lone-nutter.

Keven Hofeling writes: Indeed there are. But that wasn't the question I asked. Here is the question again, with the important parts in bold: I've never come across any examples of assassinations, political or otherwise, in which spectators' films or photos were altered or faked as part of the plot. Are there any credible accounts of photo alteration in any other assassination? In other words, has the thing that is specifically being alleged to have happened in the JFK assassination, namely the alteration of a spectator's home movie, ever happened in any other assassination? Pete suggested that because there's evidence that some types of irregularities seem to have occurred in the JFK assassination, such as the stripping of protection by the Secret Service, it's reasonable to assume that spectators' home movies or photographs might have been altered. I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption, since other assassinations have featured the stripping of protection, whereas there doesn't seem to be any precedent for the alteration of spectators' home movies or photographs, a far more complex course of action than the removal of a few bodyguards. If there is a precedent for this that I'm not aware of, I'd genuinely like to learn about it and see how closely it resembles what has been alleged to have happened in this case. Maybe the alteration of the Zapruder film isn't such a wacky idea after all! But if there is no such precedent, it reduces the already slim possibility that any perpetrators would have even considered altering the film, given that they had a couple of far more practical and straightforward ways of solving the problems created by the film.

Pete Mellor writes: I'm sure I've read about other 'inside job' assassinations in which protection was deliberately removed in order to allow the assassination to happen. But I've never come across any examples of assassinations, political or otherwise, in which spectators' films or photos were altered or faked as part of the plot. Are there any credible accounts of photo alteration in any other assassination? That's a genuine question. If any such accounts exist, it would be interesting to compare them with the claims about the JFK assassination. If no such accounts exist, in any of the numerous public assassinations and assassination attempts since the advent of photography, there's no good reason to equate altering photographs and home movies with relatively common events such as the removal of protection or the threatening of witnesses, or even the alteration of written documents such as witness statements. If, as I suspect, there are no credible accounts of anything like the alteration of the Zapruder film ever happening in any other assassination, it's a big mistake to assume that it happened in this case. The sort of evidence required to demonstrate that it happened in this case would need to be much stronger than the evidence we've seen so far: anomaly-spotting and (as Douglas Horne has done in his NPIC/Hawkeye Works speculation) the construction of elaborate scenarios based on nothing more than decades-old recollections.

Roger Odisio writes: "A plan to get away with the murder" - yes, and I've put forward, several times now, a plausible scenario for this which didn't require any of the photographic evidence to be altered. "and get the policy changes that motivated the murder" - no, we aren't justified in deducing that the policy changes motivated the murder. They may have done, or they may not have done. In order to resolve the question, we need actual evidence, the sort of thing Roger shows little interest in looking for. We don't even know who those people were, let alone what power they possessed! If Roger can provide us with an exhaustive list of the "likely" conspirators, with (and this is the important bit) a full account of how he knows that they were "likely" behind the assassination, we might be able to judge the amount of power they possessed. Until then, it's just more speculation. No. Firstly, it isn't a proof; it's merely a plausible suggestion that is consistent with the evidence we have. Secondly, there are two other factors besides the multiple shooters: The assassination was carried out in front of a large crowd, many of whom could have been expected to bring cameras with them. There was an obvious risk, maybe even a reasonable expectation, that those cameras would capture direct or indirect evidence of those multiple shooters. The choice of Oswald as a patsy. His apparent sympathies with the Cuban and Soviet regimes could be expected to come to light, something which did in fact happen (I'll come back to this point later). All three factors suggest that the assassination was intended to look like the work of the dreaded International Communist Conspiracy, and not like the work of a lone nut. How does Roger know that "the leadership of the planners" was not interested in targeting Cuba? Once Roger gets round to identifying those planners for us, we will be able to judge his latest claim. Until then, it's the usual speculation. No, I claimed that if Roger's basic speculative assumption were true, and the planners were the same people who carried out the cover-up, and if, as Roger also assumes, they wanted to eliminate the awkward evidence contained in the Zapruder film, the only certain way to do this would be to destroy it. But in reality the film wasn't destroyed, so one or both of Roger's speculative assumptions must be faulty (I suspect it's both). If, on the other hand, the people who carried out the cover-up merely wanted that awkward evidence to go away until the immediate fuss had died down, all they needed to do was ... guess what? ... hide the film until the immediate fuss had died down, which is what actually happened. In each of these scenarios, a far simpler, more obvious, and more practical option existed than trying to alter the film. I'd be surprised if anyone in Washington or Dallas, before or after the assassination, even considered the possibility of altering the film, given that 40 or more years of interest has failed to reveal anything resembling proof that alteration was considered. Wrong! Sorry. If by "that decision" Roger means the conscious choice between hiding the film or altering it, that decision was probably never made, for reasons I've just given. If he means simply the decision to hide the film, who knows? If I had to guess, it would probably have been around the time Life bought the film, or shortly afterwards. One or more of the politicians, bureaucrats and media people who were in the process of preventing a serious investigation. There is no documentary evidence that anyone in Washington insisted on having access to the original film. The fact that Life flew the original film to Chicago on the Saturday while the Secret Service took its copy, which was already in Washington, to the NPIC, tells us that Life and the Secret Service were happy to use whichever version of the film was available to each of them at the time. There is no good evidence that this happened. For the weakness of this claim, see Tom Gram's reply to Pete Mellor on page 45: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30511-the-zapruder-film-and-npichawkeyeworks-mysteries/?do=findComment&comment=542473 There is no good evidence that this happened either. See some of Tom's other comments. Hallelujah! Roger has seen the light! Consider these three factors: The film in the national archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera (see http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf). No-one has come close to proving alteration in at least 40 years of trying. No-one who has examined the actual film that's in the archives has identified any evidence of attempted alteration. Given all of this, it's safe to say that altering the film probably wasn't even considered as an option, let alone attempted. Yet again, Roger speculates that the people behind the assassination were the same people who were behind the cover-up. Let go of those assumptions, Roger! The Secret Service appear to have taken their first-day copy with them when they left the NPIC early on the Sunday morning. As far as I'm aware, that film wasn't "returned maybe 10-12 hours later", or at all. More evidence-free speculation! As I pointed out earlier, why bother to invent a superfluous event for which there is no good evidence? To look at it another way, why would anyone in Washington have decided to do something so impractical when a far simpler solution to their problem was available? All that was needed was for the original, unaltered Zapruder film to be largely hidden from public view until the fuss had died down. There is a huge amount of evidence that this is exactly what happened. ----- There's one point I've made a few times now, which Roger hasn't commented on, as far as I'm aware. It concerns the choice of Oswald as a patsy. In Roger's scenario, Oswald was chosen by people who wanted the assassination to be viewed as the work of a lone nut. But Oswald's personal history made him look like the precise opposite of a successful lone nut assassin: he was a mediocre shot, and he appeared to have strong sympathies with the Cuban and Soviet regimes. If Roger's planners wanted a patsy who looked like a lone nut, there must have been any number of more suitable candidates than Oswald. So why did they specifically choose Oswald?

Pete Mellor writes: Fair enough! Witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes. In real life, witnesses get stuff wrong far, far more often than films are altered. That, until alteration is proven, is why there are discrepancies. Films come out of the camera unaltered. That is their default state. The first thing that needs to be proved is the claim that the film has been altered. Until that happens, the default state applies: the film has not been altered. Similarly, in the case of the moon landings photos, it is up to those who claim the photos are faked to prove their claim. It is up to those who claim that the moon is made of green cheese to prove their claim. Until all of these people do this, it is rational to believe that the Zapruder film is authentic, that the moon landings photos are authentic, and that the moon is not made of green cheese. In at least 40 years of people claiming to have spotted anomalies in the film, whether it is internal inconsistencies or contradictions with witness statements or with other images, nothing has been produced that would convince a reasonable, open-minded member of the public that the film has been altered. What needs to happen is for someone to assemble the evidence for one or more specific claims of alteration, write it up into an academic-level paper, submit that paper to a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and get the paper accepted. Until that happens, it is all just amateurish moon-landings-style speculation. As far as I'm aware, no-one has even tried to do this. It's all still at the level of "well, this kinda sorta looks a bit funny to me, so the film must have been altered." That level of amateurishness is liable to make rational critics of the lone-nut theory look like idiots by association. It's because of this famous passage in McMahon's ARRB interview: 'Major credibility problems' is an understatement!

Sandy Larsen writes: Presumably that would depend on the circumstances. Their first action might have been to replicate what happened with the Zapruder film: have a quiet word with the owners and keep the film or photo hidden for as long as possible. In the case of the Darnell and Wiegman films, I presume that no-one became aware until much later that there was an awkwardly Oswald-like shape in the doorway. If, let's say, a member of the public had taken a photo which clearly showed a gunman behind the fence on the grassy knoll, or showed a gunman who clearly wasn't Oswald in a sixth-floor window, and if it wasn't possible to keep that photo hidden away, that would amount to a huge problem for the political establishment. But not necessarily a problem for whoever instigated the assassination. That political problem would have been even worse if such a photo revealed not only that the Oswald-as-lone-nut story was incorrect but also that the authorities had been messing about with Zapruder film to remove evidence of a conspiracy. Probably by having another quiet word, invoking national security, and if that failed, by using threats. Not all threats need to have implied physical violence. See, for example, the case of Charles Givens, whose criminal record (combined with the colour of his skin) rendered him susceptible to pressure to change his testimony: http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the-curious-testimony-of-mr-givens It doesn't seem unreasonable that a political insider like Bundy would work out quickly that a lone-nut interpretation would be the safest option, from the point of view of the political establishment. Once he heard that an individual had been arrested in Dallas, he promoted the idea that this individual was indeed a lone nut. There's no need to assume that Bundy's action was part of a pre-planned scheme. A simpler explanation is available. As for "if the assassination plotters played no pre-assassination roll [sic] in setting up Oswald as the patsy", my interpretation is that they did set him up as a patsy, but not as a lone-nut patsy. Oswald's personal history suggests that he must have been chosen as a patsy in order to implicate the Cuban or Soviet regimes in the assassination once his apparent sympathies with those regimes became known, something which happened quickly. Thus, he wasn't a lone-nut patsy but a patsy who was part of a conspiracy (even if he wasn't aware of that himself). His links to the intelligence community suggest that he was chosen also as a way of preventing an honest investigation by the CIA and FBI. If "the assassination plotters" had wanted to set up a patsy in advance as a lone nut, surely they would have chosen someone who didn't carry all of Oswald's ideological baggage. As I pointed out to Roger, there must have been any number of potential patsies who worked along the route of the motorcade. If the plotters wanted to implicate someone as a lone-nut patsy, why would they have chosen Oswald?

Pete Mellor writes: You shouldn't be! Eye-witnesses, especially eye-witnesses to sudden and traumatic events, get stuff wrong sometimes. They forget details that were there, and inadvertently conjure up details that weren't there. Discrepancies like that don't amount to anything. If there's any solid evidence of that, I'd be interested to see it! As for the railroad carriages, can it be demonstrated that any contradictory photos or films were actually taken at the same time, and that the carriages must have been visible from both points of view? It's always a good idea to be sceptical of claims like this, and insist on solid evidence to support them. There was a claim years ago that a photograph of a row of spectators contradicted what the Zapruder film showed. It turned out that the film and the photograph depicted two different rows of spectators. Duh! People have been coming up with supposed discrepancies like this for the last 40 years or more. So far, not a single supposed discrepancy has been proven to be the result of alteration. Most of these claims either have plausible alternative explanations or have been shown to be wrong for one reason or another: witnesses were mistaken; witnesses have been misquoted; something missing from the film isn't actually missing at all; something that shouldn't be in the film is actually an artefact in a poor-quality copy; and so on. There's more about this here: http://22november1963.org.uk/zapruder-film-genuine-or-fake#anomalies My favourite anomaly claim is this one: the plume of brain matter above JFK's head only appears in frame 313, which means that frames must have been removed! That claim has actually been made more than once on this very thread. Needless to say, if you look at frames 314 onwards, you'll see the plume of brain matter. It's visible even in poor-quality copies. This fact has been known and pointed out on this very forum for years, and people still repeat the claim. The only thing these people needed to do was look at the actual film! But they didn't bother. It makes me think that it isn't the Zapruder film that's missing some brain matter. The sheer moon-landings level of amateurishness when it comes to claims of alteration is appalling. Check out some of Tom Gram's comments on this thread. The only evidence that anything at all happened at Hawkeye Works that weekend is a second-hand piece of hearsay from decades later by someone (McMahon) who admitted that he was a recovering alcoholic and drug-addict with a form of dementia: pretty much the ultimate unreliable witness. There is no evidence that the original film was in Washington that weekend, and plenty of evidence that it was in Chicago, 600 miles away. The film that was taken to the NPIC on the Saturday evening must have been the Secret Service's first-day copy, which we know for a fact was in Washington. And if that's the case, the original film can't have been altered.

Paul Rigby writes: But CBS didn't show the film, did they? It was owned by Life, who kept it largely hidden from the public for 12 years. Hiding the film solved the problem. There was no need to alter it! Nor was there any need to round up all the other films and photos and then alter whichever ones contradicted an altered Zapruder film, a ludicrously impractical scenario which we know did not happen but which must have happened if any rational conspirators wanted to prevent the public finding out that the Zapruder film had been altered.

Roger Odisio writes: Yet again, Roger is assuming that the people who "began blaming Oswald" were the same people who instigated the assassination. Let go of those assumptions, Roger! There is an alternative explanation: one set of people made the assassination look like the work of a communist conspiracy, which prompted a second set of people, the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, to defuse popular discontent by blaming it on a lone nut. Whoever instigated the assassination made a (presumably) rational decision to connect the assassination to Oswald. But Oswald was one of thousands of people who worked along the route of the motorcade, any number of whom might have been candidates for the role of patsy. Why was Oswald chosen? If the planners had intended the blame to fall on a lone nut, Oswald was a really poor choice. Not only had he been a mediocre shot a few years earlier in the Marines, but he had some very obvious recent links to both the Cuban and Soviet regimes. The planners must have anticipated that Oswald's apparent links to those regimes would come to light before too long, which is exactly what happened. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that Oswald was chosen precisely because his personal history would suggest that he was working on behalf of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. That would apply whatever his actual involvement was supposed to have been, whether it involved firing his rifle himself or merely supplying it to someone else. Roger claims that the intention before the assassination was to pin the blame on a lone nut, i.e. someone who had no affiliations to any group. Why, then, didn't the planners choose someone who actually had no affiliations to any group? Someone like Buell Wesley Frazier would have fitted the bill, wouldn't he? He had no strong political affiliations (as far as I'm aware, at least); he owned a rifle; he worked at a building along the route; he had access to the sixth floor of that building; and he was just as disposable as Oswald. In Roger's opinion, why was Oswald, with all his ideological baggage, specifically chosen as the patsy before the assassination? As I've explained several times, the Zapruder film was dealt with! It was hidden from public view for more than a decade. Doing so succeeded in eliminating the immediate problem. It prevented the public at large from becoming aware of the ways in which the film contradicted the lone-nut interpretation. There's no need to complicate matters by adding an extra, unnecessary layer to the story. Rather than speculate that the film was altered and then hidden, why not cut out the middle man? The unaltered film was just hidden! That was the only thing that needed to happen, in order to deal with the problem of the film's incriminating contents. I've never claimed that "they never had a reason to do anything" with the film. Something was done with the film: it was kept largely out of public view for 12 years. There was no reason to alter it when all that was needed was to hide it, which is what happened.

Jean Ceulemans writes: The figure of 21 probably refers to the photographers and home movie makers whose names we know and whose images we know about. There was at least one other whose name we don't know: the woman in the headscarf. There may well be photographs taken in Dealey Plaza that have been sitting in a box in someone's attic for the last 60 years. When the Secret Service took its copy of the Zapruder film to the NPIC on the Saturday, many of these other photographers were unknown to anyone in authority. Roger doesn't seem to grasp the point Jonathan made: that altering one home movie in isolation would have been a very stupid thing to do. Roger writes: The point isn't that these other photographs and films "could have contradicted the Oswald story", but that they could have contradicted an altered Zapruder film, which would have blown the entire film-altering scheme wide open. Even if we take seriously the speculation that anyone in authority even considered altering the Zapruder film, it is inconceivable that they would have done so while leaving the rest of the photographic evidence untouched. Unless they were extremely stupid, it would have been blindingly obvious to them that they needed to round up all of the photographs and home movies and make sure that none of these images contained scenes which conflicted with whatever alterations they planned to make. As Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain makes clear, officialdom showed next to no interest in the photographic record in general. They took an interest in some, but not all, of the photographs and films that were presented to them. They dismissed some important evidence, such as the films of Charles Bronson and Robert Hughes. There was no official effort to assemble all or even most of the photographic evidence at any time, let alone during the weekend of the assassination. Not only is there no good evidence that the original Zapruder film was examined at NPIC on the Saturday, and no evidence at all that it was altered at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday, but there is no reason to assume that anyone would have been so stupid as to alter one film while leaving all the others at large. If anyone wanted to conceal the evidence contained within the Zapruder film, they had two options: destroy it or hide it away. They chose the latter option.

Roger Odisio writes: Roger still doesn't seem to understand the point I was making. The "planners of the JFKA" had a plan to "cover up their involvement". That plan was not to "blame Oswald as a lone assassin" but to make the assassination look as though it was carried out on behalf of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. Why else would they have chosen someone with Oswald's personal history? Roger can't let go of the assumption that it was the "planners of the JFKA" who decided to snatch the body, murder Oswald, and set up the Warren Commission. He still assumes that the "planners" were the same people who implemented the lone-nut idea. Let go of those assumptions, Roger! My old hardback dictionary defines credulity as a "disposition to believe something on little evidence", which seems to sum up Roger's take on the matter. He probably meant 'credibility'. No, we don't know that. If that's what Roger thinks, he should provide some evidence to support his assumptions. Otherwise, it's just speculation. As Jonathan points out, there was a problem with altering the Zapruder film. It risked making those alterations obvious when the film was compared to other films or photographs which captured the same scenes. The weekend of the assassination was the only time any alterations would have been feasible, due to the rapidly proliferating number of copies in circulation. But at that time only a small number of other home movies and photographs were known to the authorities (and presumably to Roger's "planners"). Perhaps Roger could explain what his "planners" were thinking when they decided to alter the Zapruder film while leaving any number of contradictory images at large. This sums up the whole alteration nonsense. Not only is there no good evidence for any of it, but the whole scenario is hopelessly impractical.

Keven Hofeling writes: No, that isn't the only explanation for the use of monochrome images in the magazine which came out on the Monday or Tuesday. David Wrone, in The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (e.g. p.53), claims that monochrome images were chosen because LIFE was trying to get the revised magazine published as soon as possible, and colour images would have taken too long to prepare. Wrone cites Loudon Wainwright's Life: The Great American Magazine, p.376. I haven't read Wainwright's book, but it sounds like a plausible reason to me (in normal darkroom work, colour films and prints took a lot longer to prepare than monochrome films and prints). In fact, it sounds like the only plausible reason, since there is no serious evidence that the original film was ever in Washington that weekend, and no evidence at all that an "altered Zapruder film ... was struck contemporaneous therewith and quickly couriered to Chicago for the 11/29/1963 edition".

Roger Odisio writes: Indeed. The point is that if Roger is presenting those logical inferences as proof that the Zapruder film was at NPIC on the Saturday evening, one of two things needs to happen: either those inferences do need to be the inevitable consequences of his premises, or he needs to support those inferences with actual evidence. Roger admits that option one doesn't apply here. He now needs to provide some actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, his claim that the original Zapruder film was taken to NPIC is speculation. We have documentary evidence that Jackson got hold of the film on behalf of Life. We have no documentary evidence that he got hold of it on behalf of the CIA. Roger is claiming that Jackson did get hold of it on behalf of the CIA. He needs to support this claim with documentary evidence. Otherwise, it is just speculation. Having the means to transport the film is very much not the same thing as actually transporting the film. If Roger is claiming that the CIA got hold of the film in Chicago and flew it to Washington, he needs to provide actual documentary evidence that this happened. Otherwise, it is just speculation. And before Roger claims that the CIA would have destroyed all of its internal memos, has he searched for other forms of relevant evidence? For example: interviews with Life's people in Chicago, in case someone happened to have disclosed information suggesting that the original film was given to a man wearing a dark suit and sunglasses who was not an employee of Life? What about internal documentation from Life concerning events on the Saturday evening? Or airport records? If Roger has searched for evidence like this, what did he find? If he hasn't bothered to look, why has he not bothered to look? As for "explain[ing] how anyone else but the CIA had access to either of its labs", Chris Scally posted evidence earlier that the Secret Service lacked the facilities to examine films and would have asked the CIA to make use of their facilities. The actual evidence we have suggests that the Secret Service took their first-day copy to the CIA's NPIC facility for examination. There is no actual evidence, apart from decades-old recollections, that the original film was anywhere near NPIC that weekend. Roger keeps making the same faulty assumption: that "the planners" wanted to alter the film because it contradicted the lone-nut story. He still doesn't seem to have grasped the point I made, namely that the circumstances of the assassination indicate that "the planners" would not have been concerned that any of the photographic evidence might contradict the lone-nut story. If, as appears to be the case, the assassination was set up to look like a conspiracy, "the planners" must have wanted it to look like a conspiracy. Photographic evidence which supported that interpretation would have been welcomed by "the planners". They would have had no reason to alter any of it. Something was done with it! The original, unaltered film was largely hidden from public view for over a decade!

Pat Speer writes: Exactly! I really don't understand Roger's attitude to what is essentially the accepted version of events (among those who don't believe the 'Oswald did it all by himself' line, of course): The circumstances of the assassination (including the widely reported sounds of shots from the front) suggested a conspiracy of some sort. The personal history of the chosen patsy suggested that the assassination was an example of [cue spooky background music] the International Communist Conspiracy, a propaganda concept that was in wide circulation at the time. Politicians and bureaucrats feared not only pressure for retribution, leading to a new world war, but also public distrust of governmental institutions, and decided that blaming it on a lone nut was the best way to defuse both problems. The people who instigated the assassination designed it so that it would imply a communist conspiracy, and did so for any of several reasons: perhaps to provoke an invasion of Cuba or an attack on the Soviet Union, perhaps simply to prompt the politicians and bureaucrats into pursuing a lone-nut narrative. Whatever their precise motives, JFK would be out of the way and they themselves would avoid blame for the assassination. As Jean pointed out a couple of pages ago, it's conceivable that one or more of the actual conspirators also played a role in the cover-up. Allen Dulles would be an obvious candidate here, steering his fellow Warren Commission members in the right direction. But any such involvement in the cover-up does not imply that the decision to officially promote the lone-nut interpretation was not made after the event by people unconnected to the assassination itself. Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust (University Press of Kansas, 2005) includes a good account of the development of the lone-nut idea within bureaucratic circles in Washington (warning: not suitable for anyone with an aversion to actual documentary evidence!). Since the assassination was clearly not set up to imply that it was the work of a lone nut, those who instigated the assassination would have had no reason to seize the Zapruder film and alter it on the weekend of the assassination. As we have seen, there is no good evidence that the film ever went to the NPIC, let alone Hawkeye Works, that weekend.

Sandy Larsen writes: I explained this in my previous comment. Roger's "logical inferences" may be consistent with his premises, but they are not the inevitable consequences of those premises. His conclusion does not follow logically from his premises. His argument goes like this: the CIA knew that Life possessed the original Zapruder film; CD Jackson, the owner of Life, had links with the CIA; it would have been simple for the CIA to ask Jackson to get hold of the film on their behalf; therefore Jackson got hold of the film and gave it to the CIA, and the CIA took it to NPIC and altered it at Hawkeye Works. Items one to three of the argument are true, but item four does not follow. Roger would be justified in claiming that 'Jackson may have got hold of the film, and may have given it to the CIA, and the CIA may have taken it to NPIC and may have altered it at Hawkeye Works', but that isn't what he is claiming. Unless he can produce sufficient actual evidence (or indeed any actual evidence!) that 'Jackson actually got hold of the film, and actually gave it to the CIA, and the CIA actually took it to NPIC and actually altered it at Hawkeye Works', his argument relies fundamentally on speculation. There's also a preceding assumption, which would be item 0 in that list: the CIA wanted to possess the original Zapruder film. That's something that also requires actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, it's just more speculation. But Roger doesn't seem to have any interest in actual evidence.

Roger Odisio writes: No, it isn't. As I've already explained, Roger's scenario does not follow inevitably "from what we know". It is pure speculation, as we see from Roger's next paragraph: If Roger wants us to believe that the CIA instructed Jackson to obtain the original film for them, and that the CIA then took the film to the NPIC, he needs to provide actual evidence that these things happened. But there isn't any, is there? Just because one scenario is theoretically possible, does not mean that it actually occurred. In this case, it is also theoretically possible that a different scenario occurred, namely that the CIA did not instruct Jackson to obtain the original film for them. To tip the balance in his favour, Roger needs to provide actual evidence. He hasn't done so. He seems to have an aversion to actual evidence. I've explained, several times now, why the film that was taken to the NPIC can only reasonably have been the Secret Service's copy. It's because that's the only conclusion that is consistent with the actual documentary evidence which exists. This really isn't difficult to understand. Roger keeps claiming that "Johnson and the CIA" or "the CIA" or "the planners" might, in theory, have obtained the original film from Life. It's true; they might have done that. Equally, they might not have done that. In the absence of actual evidence, both conclusions are speculative. But there is actual evidence to support one of those conclusions, isn't there? One conclusion is supported by evidence, while the other remains based purely on speculation. Unfortunately, it's Roger's preferred conclusion which is based on nothing but speculation. Roger gives the impression that he hasn't even attempted to find documentary evidence to support his speculative scenario. How can he claim, as he has done several times, that the Bad Guys destroyed all the evidence, if he hasn't even bothered to look for any evidence? I really don't understand Roger's continued preference for pure speculation over actual evidence. I explained what that plan was: make the assassination look like the work of the Cuban or Soviet regimes. I assume Roger agrees that the circumstances of the shooting suggest that the conspirators wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy that was carried out by people other than the actual conspirators.

Sandy Larsen writes: Yes. My point was that the circumstances of the assassination (multiple gunmen in front of numerous spectators with cameras) indicate that whoever instigated the assassination was happy for the public to believe that the assassination was a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut. If anyone can argue the opposite, that the actual circumstances of the assassination implicated a lone nut rather than a conspiracy, please go ahead. The evidence I cited (the actual circumstances of the assassination) indicates that any such decision had been made long before JFK arrived in Dallas. Sandy is making two assumptions here: that alteration of physical evidence was necessary, and that the people who instigated the assassination also instigated that alteration. This may be clear to Sandy, but I don't see any good evidence to support either of those assumptions. Pinning the blame on Oswald alone did not require any alteration or faking of any of the physical evidence, whether it was JFK's body or the Zapruder film or the Altgens 6 photograph or the Moorman photograph. There is no good evidence that any of these things were altered or faked, let alone that the people who instigated the assassination were in a position to alter any of the physical evidence, or that they even wanted to. I'd agree with that, if any "early surgery" took place. But there's no good evidence that it did. Lifton's body-alteration claims have been discussed in detail on numerous other threads; this thread is about the NPIC event. That was in response to my question: Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to ways in which the assassination could be interpreted after the event as the work of a lone nut, but to the actual circumstances of the shooting. Carrying it out in a public place, in front of numerous spectators with cameras, suggests that it was intended to look like the work of multiple gunmen. Do the actual circumstances of the shooting indicate that it was intended to look like the work of a lone gunman rather than multiple gunmen?

Roger Odisio writes: It's good that Roger is now making it clear that this essential part of his theory is speculative. It is not a fact "that CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film". A plausible alternative scenario is that CIA brass and Jackson did not get together to plan how they could gain control of the film. Roger's "CIA brass and CD Jackson got together" scenario is consistent with his original assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination. If, on the other hand, the people who promoted the cover-up were not the same people who instigated the assassination, Roger's scenario does not follow: in the absence of actual documentary evidence, there is no reason to believe that "CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film". If CIA brass and Jackson did not get together, there is no reason to believe that the CIA (or anyone else) obtained the original film from Life. And if no-one obtained the original film from Life on the weekend of the assassination, the film cannot plausibly have been altered, for reasons I've already given. As I've tried to point out several times, Roger's entire argument depends upon his assumption that the people who promoted the cover-up were the same people who instigated the assassination. If that assumption is mistaken, the case for alteration collapses. The people who promoted the cover-up claimed that the assassination was the work of a lone nut, not a conspiracy. I've given reasons to suggest that whoever instigated the assassination wanted it to look like the precise opposite of that: a conspiracy and not the work of a lone nut. Can anyone make the case that the assassination was intended to look like the work of a lone nut? If not, the cover-up cannot realistically have been promoted by the same people who instigated the assassination.

Roger Odisio writes: Roger doesn't see why his assumptions need to be "demonstrated somehow", i.e. supported by actual evidence. That sums up the problem, doesn't it? Also, it may be "an amazing assertion" to Roger, but it isn't to most critics of the lone-nut idea. Outside the 'everything is a fake' subculture, it's widely believed that the people who planned the assassination were not those who carried out the cover-up. This has been the case for at least 30 years, ever since Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK came out. That book may not be to Roger's taste, however, since Scott has the unfortunate habit of basing his conclusions on actual documentary evidence, rather than pure speculation. Again, the same problem raises its head. Roger simply assumes that all of these things are "evidence that a coordinated coverup was preplanned". Rather than coming up with yet more speculation, Roger needs to justify his assumptions. All of these things are consistent with the idea that the cover-up was separate from the assassination. Correct. But how did they plan "to cover up their involvement and blame someone else"? Reliance on speculation has, as usual, led Roger to the wrong answer. Instead, let's look at some actual evidence, namely the basic fact that the assassination was carried out in front of hundreds of spectators, many of whom carried cameras. Anyone who planned to carry out an assassination, using multiple gunmen, in front of a large crowd of people with cameras, must have understood that evidence of those multiple gunmen was likely to emerge. I'm sure Roger can understand that point. Evidently, those planners must have been happy for the public to believe that the assassination was carried out by multiple gunmen, and that it was a conspiracy. Just as evidently, those planners cannot have wanted the assassination to appear to be the work of a lone gunman. If they had, they would have ensured that it looked like the work of a lone gunman. But they didn't do that. Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume along with Roger that the people who planned the assassination chose Oswald in advance as a patsy. What was it about Oswald that made them choose him rather than someone else? His background, as a former defector to the Soviet Union and a recent pro-Castro propagandist, not to mention his mediocre record with a rifle while in the Marines, made him a poor choice to be a lone gunman patsy. If Oswald was chosen in advance to be a patsy, it was because his personal history suggested that he was working on behalf of either the Cuban or Soviet regimes. There is actual evidence that Oswald's personal history generated communist-conspiracy speculation soon after the assassination. (Of course, I'm referring to why Oswald was chosen as a patsy for public consumption. The other reason for choosing Oswald was that his links to US intelligence served to prevent a serious investigation by the CIA and FBI; see Bill Simpich's State Secret for a full account of this: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html. Warning: contains actual documentary evidence!) That's how "the killers ... [had] a plan in place to cover up their involvement and blame someone else." Not by making the assassination look like the work of one person, but by making it look like a conspiracy carried out by the Cuban or Soviet regimes. Again, this may be "an amazing assertion" to Roger, but it really isn't to anyone who relies on actual evidence rather than speculation. Here we go again: yet more speculation. Roger has still failed to provide any documentary evidence that "officials in DC" insisted on using the original film rather than the copy which was the only version they had access to at the time, or that any such "desire ... was made known to Jackson". In the absence of actual evidence, it's worthless speculation. There's no reason to assume that Life's decision not "to cash it in by showing the film publicly" was made during the weekend of the assassination. Jackson's behaviour that weekend was indeed consistent with Life's commercial interests. As Pat Speer pointed out several pages ago, Life's payment of the equivalent of $1.5 million was a reasonable commercial decision: had they made use of the film, they could have made a large profit on their investment. The fact that Life did indeed hide the film largely (but not entirely; bootlegs were in circulation from early on) from public view is consistent with the idea that hiding the unaltered original film was all that was necessary in order to conceal the incriminating evidence it contained. And the fact, supported by actual evidence, that the Secret Service's copy was the only version of the film known to have been in Washington at the time. And the facts, also supported by actual evidence, that the Secret Service wanted to examine the film, and that they lacked the facilities to do so, and that they would have asked the CIA for the use of their facilities. The Secret Service: possessed a copy in Washington; wanted to see what that copy contained; did not have the ability to examine the film themselves; did have an arrangement to borrow the CIA's facilities, such as the NPIC in Washington; and brought a version of the film to NPIC on the Saturday evening, at a time when no other version of the film can be demonstrated to have been anywhere near Washington. Looking at the actual evidence that exists, the film that was examined at NPIC can only have been the Secret Service's first-day copy. Against that, there's nothing but speculation. Since the original film was not at NPIC, it cannot have been altered that weekend. And if it wasn't altered that weekend, it can't have been altered at all, because numerous copies proliferated soon afterwards, and rounding them all up would quickly have become impossible.

Sandy Larsen writes: But that would include ... pretty much everything, wouldn't it? Roger writes: I hope Tom doesn't mind if I jump in here. It's true that not all evidence need be documentary. Roger's problem is that none of the evidence he has offered is documentary. He has built almost his entire argument on inferences from premises, along with a smattering of documentary evidence provided by others. It's Roger's premises which have let him down, beginning with his most fundamental premise. He starts from the assumption that the people who implemented the lone-nut idea after the assassination were the same people who planned to blame a lone nut before the assassination. Well, that's something that doesn't appear to follow from any premises. It needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. As I have already pointed out, the simple fact that the JFK assassination was carried out in Dealey Plaza makes it clear that the lone-nut explanation cannot have been part of the plan. Whoever planned the assassination, using multiple gunmen, would have known that hundreds of spectators would be present; that many of those spectators would be carrying cameras; and that, consequently, there was a good chance that photographic evidence would emerge which would expose the use of multiple gunmen. No rational planners can have set up that particular assassination with the intention of making it look like the work of a lone gunman. If that had been their intention, they wouldn't have carried it out in public using multiple gunmen. They would have either (a) carried it out somewhere much less public than Dealey Plaza, or (b) used an actual lone gunman, but in circumstances which ensured that the lone gunman would be successful. And that's leaving aside their apparent choice of patsy: someone whose personal history screamed International Communist Conspiracy. If Roger thinks I've got that wrong, he needs to show why his all-powerful Bad Guys could rationally have carried out an assassination in public using multiple gunmen and expected no evidence of those multiple gunmen to emerge. Now let's look at a selection of Roger's other unjustified assumptions. He writes: Roger is assuming that just because CD Jackson had ties to the CIA, he was doing their bidding throughout the assassination weekend. But all of Jackson's behaviour that weekend was consistent with the commercial interests of Life. If Roger is claiming that Jackson was taking instructions from the CIA, it's up to him to support this claim with actual evidence. The one thing Jackson did which was clearly in the interests of promoting the lone-nut idea (while also being in Life's commercial interests) was buying the physical film. But there is no obligation to speculate that this was done as part of a plan to alter the film. We can interpret this act in another way, in which Roger's "Johnson and the CIA" became aware that the Zapruder film contradicted the lone-nut story, and thought: hey, let's get our guy Jackson to buy up the film and keep it away from the general public until the fuss dies down! There are two advantages of this scenario over Roger's scenario: It's consistent with the film at NPIC being the Secret Service's first-day copy, which is what the actual evidence indicates. Life buying up the film and keeping it largely out of public view for 12 years is what actually happened. We know that this actually happened because a ton of actual evidence exists to show that Life bought the film and kept it largely out of public view for 12 years. Actual evidence exists for this simple scenario, but, so far, there is no actual evidence to support Roger's more convoluted 'the CIA grabbed the film and altered it at Hawkeye Works' scenario, which is entirely speculative. The reason Roger's scenario is entirely speculative is that it follows from an unjustified assumption. If, as all the evidence indicates, the only film those officials had access to was the Secret Service's first-day copy, there's no need to speculate that they discussed using the original film at NPIC. If Roger wants us to believe that any officials insisted on inspecting the original version of the film, he needs to supply some actual evidence to that effect, and stop making stuff up. As I pointed out earlier, there's no reason to suppose that any memos to that effect would have been censored, since a desire to see the original film would not imply that anything untoward would happen to the film as a result. Where are those memos? Plenty of internal memos and other documents from that weekend survive and are available online. Has Roger even looked for any documentary evidence to support his claims? Roger has supplied no documentary evidence that anyone in Washington insisted on viewing the original film and was not satisfied with only viewing a copy. Until he does, there is no reason to believe that claim. It's just empty speculation, based on empty assumptions. And finally: That's what positive evidence is: documentary evidence. No such evidence exists that anything other than the Secret Service's first-day copy was taken to NPIC over that weekend.

Roger Odisio writes: The officials may have "want[ed] to use the original for their briefing boards", despite the complete lack of documentary evidence to support this assumption. But, as I keep pointing out, Roger needs to provide actual evidence to support his claim that officials actually insisted on using the original and not a copy. Otherwise, it's just speculation. Because, according to the actual evidence that exists, a copy of the film is all they had. We must base our conclusions on the actual evidence that exists, not on empty speculation. According to the evidence that exists, officials in Washington had access to only one version of the Zapruder film on the Saturday afternoon. The original and the other two copies were (at least) hundreds of miles away (although another copy was on its way to Washington). Since the only version which the officials had access to was the Secret Service's first-day copy, and since the film at NPIC was brought there by the Secret Service, the film at NPIC can only have been the Secret Service's copy. This really isn't difficult to understand, and it's the only conclusion which the existing evidence allows us to make. Yes, we know that now. But so what? No-one in Washington would have known exactly what the film contained until they viewed it. The fact that the film turned out to contradict the lone-nut story does not allow us to conclude that anyone in Washington would have insisted on viewing only the original film. If Roger wants us to believe that they did insist on this, he needs to provide actual documentary evidence, not speculation. Since a copy was the only version the officials had access to, they would have used the copy. That second sentence is pure speculation. "Officials from the WH and CIA" would have wanted "to deal with that" contradiction by ... doing what, exactly? Something for which no evidence exists, presumably. Underneath all of this speculation, there's Roger's basic assumption that the people in Washington who were spreading the lone-nut story after the assassination were the same people who planned the assassination and decided before the event to pin the blame on a lone nut. That's something he needs to justify with evidence, not merely assume to be true. Roger's entire evidence-free, speculation-filled scenario is based on that assumption. As I pointed out earlier, that assumption makes no sense. Any planners who deliberately staged an assassination using multiple gunmen in front of a large crowd of people with cameras could have expected photographic evidence to emerge which revealed that multiple gunmen were involved. Those planners, if they were acting rationally, cannot have wanted that assassination to appear to be the act of a lone nut. What actual evidence (not speculation) does Roger have that the people who planned the assassination were the same people who tried to impose the lone-nut story afterwards?

Roger Odisio writes: Roger's argument seems to be: "the White House and CIA" would have insisted on using only the original, therefore the film at NPIC must be the original. But the first part of the argument is pure speculation. Roger has produced no documentary evidence that anyone in authority insisted on using only the original or was at all bothered by the fact that the only film available to them in Washington on the Saturday afternoon was the Secret Service's first-day copy. This is the sort of documentary evidence that we can expect to have survived. There's nothing sinister in, say, a memo expressing a preference for the original film rather than a copy. There's no reason to believe that a memo like this would have been censored. But no such evidence seems to exist. At least, Roger has not presented any. Has he even looked in the abundant records, to see what support there is for his claim? My point was that, according to the documentary evidence that does actually exist, the original film was nowhere near Washington at the time, and for that reason the film which went to NPIC must have been the Secret Service's copy. Until Roger or anyone else produces actual evidence to the contrary, that's the only rational conclusion we can come to, even if it does require Roger to make the painful leap of abandoning his evidence-free assumptions. You can do it, Roger! I ignored that specific claim because it comes under the general heading of pure speculation. Note the word "if" in Roger's second sentence. Correct. The documented fact that Life possessed the original is one reason why the original was not altered or destroyed. Roger needs to stop making assumptions and provide actual evidence before claiming that anyone in Washington on the Saturday would have considered altering or destroying any version of a film they hadn't yet seen. Roger now seems to be claiming that the Secret Service officers who brought a film to the NPIC were CIA officers. I suppose that's the only way to avoid the obvious conclusion that if Secret Service officers brought a film to the NPIC, that film can only realistically have been the Secret Service's copy. Needless to say, Roger hasn't provided a shred of evidence to support this claim, or even any reason to think such a thing would have happened. Can Roger give us a plausible reason why CIA officers would tell other CIA employees at a CIA plant that they were actually Secret Service officers? What would they hope to gain by doing that? Roger's own witnesses provided the evidence he's looking for: the claim that the film was delivered by Secret Service officers. Surely even Roger must accept by now that the film at NPIC on the Saturday can only have been the Secret Service's copy! If that film was the Secret Service's copy, that's the end of the idea that the original was altered that weekend. And if the original wasn't altered that weekend, it can't realistically have been altered at all, since numerous copies began to appear shortly afterwards, and rounding them all up would quickly have become impossible. It may be obvious to Roger, but the rest of us will need some actual evidence before concluding that "the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film". The onus really is on Roger to provide evidence to justify his claims. Is there anything at all in the documentary record to suggest that "the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film"? If there is, please cite this evidence so that we can evaluate it. If there isn't, stop making stuff up. I'm reminded of Chris Scally's question to Roger a few pages ago, which Roger still hasn't answered. What actual research has Roger done? Has Roger even looked at the documentary record for evidence to support any of his claims? If he has, which areas of the records has he checked? If he hasn't even bothered to look, why has he not bothered to look? Roger doesn't seem to understand the point I was making, probably because he can't let go of his assumption that a bunch of all-powerful Bad Guys controlled everything from start to finish: the assassination, the creation of a patsy, the immediate cover-up, and the continuing cover-up. Come on, Roger! Let go of those assumptions, and see where the actual evidence takes you!

Chuck Schwartz (or maybe Douglas Horne) writes: Because, as anyone who has been reading this thread should be aware by now, there is no "mounting evidence". It's all speculation! Here's a little task for anyone who still takes Horne seriously: go through that piece by Horne, and pick out the number of times he writes "I believe" or "in my view" or words to that effect. Then compare that number with the number of times Horne cites actual evidence to support his claims (spoiler alert: it's zero). Let's see how many pieces of pure speculation Horne can squeeze into less than one paragraph. He writes: Horne can't even get the original Zapruder film, let alone his hypothetical fake, to NPIC without speculation, because there is no good evidence that either of these things happened. As for the notion that the original film was altered at Hawkeye Works, literally the only evidence is a recollection, decades later, by someone who admitted to being a recovering alcoholic and drug-addict with a form of dementia. As Pat Speer points out, Horne is a seriously unreliable narrator. You really shouldn't believe anything Horne writes unless it's supported by proper documentary evidence. After all, Horne has a history of pushing crazy ideas that risk making all lone-nut critics look like idiots: namely Lifton's body-alteration nonsense. I assume Horne isn't motivated by any desire to discredit lone-nut critics, and that he genuinely believes this nonsense. But nonsense it is. All you need to do is apply the same critical thinking to Horne's far-fetched, speculative assertions as you would to someone who asserts that Oswald did it.

Roger Odisio writes: The question I asked was: Why should "Johnson and the CIA" have assumed that a first-generation copy would not have contained enough detail to determine the number and direction of the shots? Roger hasn't answered this. Of course the original film would reveal more detail than a copy, but Roger has given us no reason to doubt that a first-generation copy would be sufficient for discovering basic information such as the number and direction of shots. Combine that with what the documentary evidence tells us: on the Saturday afternoon, high-ups in Washington had access to one version of the Zapruder film, namely the Secret Service's first-day copy. The fact that it was Secret Service officers (and not CIA officers) who brought the film to NPIC, and Secret Service officers (not CIA officers) who took it away afterwards, strongly suggests that the film in question was in fact the Secret Service's first-day copy. If, as Roger proposes, the CIA had somehow obtained the original Zapruder film and conveyed it to Washington on the Saturday, surely we would expect to find CIA officers taking the film to the CIA's very own NPIC, and CIA officers taking it away again afterwards. But we don't, do we? Since the relevant officers were actually from the Secret Service, the only reasonable conclusion is that they were bringing and taking away the Secret Service's own copy. The reason I keep going on about documentary evidence is that, if Roger wants to propose an alternative scenario, he really needs to do more than speculate about what he thinks "Johnson and the CIA" might have wanted. You can't build a case based only on speculation, when a plausible alternative case exists which is based on solid documentary evidence. So, if Roger wants to persuade anyone that the original Zapruder film was in Washington on the Saturday evening, he needs to produce actual evidence that supports that claim. Obviously we can't expect to find a CIA memo detailing that this particular CIA plane flew from Chicago to Washington, and that this particular CIA agent had the film in his hand luggage. But we might expect to find some trace in the documentary record that "Johnson and the CIA" wanted to obtain the original film rather than a copy on the Saturday. Has anyone even bothered to trawl through the records, looking for something like this? If not, why not? Roger's scenario is that the assassination involved multiple gunmen in order to make sure that JFK was killed, and that before the assassination it was decided that the blame would be placed on a lone nut. That sort of makes sense, until you work out that staging such an assassination in public isn't consistent with blaming it beforehand on a lone nut. As I pointed out earlier, if you decide to stage an assassination in front of hundreds of spectators (which there were), you can expect dozens of those spectators to capture images of the assassination (which they did), and that there was a good chance that some of those images would expose the assassination as the work of more than one gunmen (which is what happened). If you want to use multiple gunmen to assassinate someone in front of hundreds of spectators, dozens of whom would be taking photos and home movies, you can expect evidence to emerge that would at least suggest that multiple gunmen were involved. You would only do this if (a) you didn't care that the assassination might look like a conspiracy or (b) you actively wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy. To look at the problem from a different direction: if you want to blame a lone nut beforehand, you would either (a) use an actual lone gunman with better skills, a better-quality rifle, and a better line of sight than Oswald is supposed to have had, or (b) use multiple gunmen and stage the assassination somewhere very much less public than Dealey Plaza. What you wouldn't do is stage the assassination in a way that produces photographic evidence that more than one gunman was involved, and then go around trying to clean up the photographic record afterwards. Not only would this have involved unnecessary work and almost certainly not have succeeded, but there was no guarantee that photographs or home movies might come to light in the future, exposing any photo-alteration. In short, whoever was behind the assassination can only have staged it in Dealey Plaza in order to make it look like a conspiracy (and chose a patsy whose personal history made the conspiracy look as though it originated with the Cuban or Soviet regimes). And if they wanted to make it look like a conspiracy, they wouldn't have cared what the Zapruder film or any other photographic evidence showed. To get back to the topic of this thread, the notion that Oswald was chosen as a patsy before the assassination as an integral part of the plot (which may well be the case), is not consistent with the claim that the original Zapruder film was examined at NPIC and altered at Hawkeye Works (for which there is no good evidence anyway). Of course not. If anyone (a) had control of the film and (b) wanted to completely eliminate any incriminating evidence in the film, the only sure way to do so would be to destroy the film. The fact that the film was not destroyed, and survives to this day in the national archives, shows that the people who controlled the assassination either (i) didn't control the film or (ii) didn't care about any incriminating evidence it contained. There is no justification for assuming that some all-powerful Bad Guys controlled everything from start to finish.