Jeremy Bojczuk

Referring to the suggestion that a particular anomaly might be due to the normal operation of the camera, Sandy Larsen writes: And, referring to the suggestion that a particular anomaly might be due to the copying process: I'll try yet again. Sandy needs to do a lot more than simply declare that something is impossible. He needs to explain in detail why it is impossible. He is claiming that the selective blurring which he sees in a copy (of a copy, of a copy, etc) of the Zapruder film cannot be due to anything other than deliberate alteration of the film. He has used the phrases "defies the laws of physics" and "cannot have occurred naturally." He is claiming that every cause other than deliberate alteration is impossible. That's a big claim to make, and a high hurdle of proof to overcome. It is up to him to demonstrate, and not merely assert, that every other conceivable cause is impossible. To do this, he needs to consider the conceivable causes I mentioned, and show why they cannot have happened. Of course, other conceivable causes may come to mind in the future, each of which would also need to be ruled out. Let's start with physical imperfections in the mechanism of Zapruder's camera or lens or the film he was using. Has Sandy, or anyone else, examined that particular model of camera and that particular model of lens? If not, are there any plans to do so? How is it impossible for such factors to have caused the anomaly? Were the shutter mechanism, the sprocket mechanism, the lens, and every other component so precisely engineered and manufactured that all physical factors can be definitively ruled out? Then there's the copying process. I presume Sandy has only looked at copies of the film and not the actual film that's in the National Archives. In fact, I suspect that Sandy has only looked at relatively poor-quality copies, such as the Costella frames he has posted here. Has Sandy inspected any good-quality copies? If he has, how good were they? If not, how would he rule out the possibility that better-quality copies than the ones he is using will not show the anomaly in question (as we have seen with other claims of alteration such as John Butler's claim about Phil Willis's extra-long leg)? Given the number of physical and digital processes that can be used in the copying of films, how is it impossible for any copying process to generate the anomaly? Does Sandy have a comprehensive list of the copying processes, both physical and digital, which were involved in creating the images he is using? If not, how can he rule out the possibility that an unknown copying process caused the anomaly? That should keep him busy for a while. If Sandy were following the usual pattern, and merely claimed that something in the film doesn't look quite right to him and he can't think of a non-sinister explanation so maybe it's due to alteration, then I'd be tempted to agree with him. Maybe the anomaly is due to alteration. Maybe it isn't. So what? Who cares? Until someone comes up with proof, it's just one more anomaly to add to the three-decades-old pile of worthless anomalies and unproved speculations. But since Sandy has decided to go all dogmatic and is actually making the positive claim that any explanation is impossible that doesn't involve alteration, he's given himself a big problem to solve. It's up to him to prove that every reasonable explanation that doesn't involve alteration is impossible. It's a huge task. I don't think he'll be able to do it, but it would be good if he could at least make an effort.

John Butler writes: No, that's not what I claimed. John is either mistaken or dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is mistaken due to his blind devotion to the preposterous belief that every film and photo taken in Dealey Plaza has been faked. I suspect he didn't bother reading my comment, or at least didn't read it carefully enough. I hope that's what happened, and that he wasn't deliberately misrepresenting what I had claimed. My claim was that the copying process can produce visual anomalies. We know that this happens. Just look at some of the many versions of the Zapruder film and other assassination-related films and photos that are available online and in print. The quality varies. Some show more detail than others. You can see blobs, lines, and other objects in one version of a particular film frame or photo that you won't see in other versions. That can only be caused by the copying process. It's the result of factors such as the number of generations between the original and the copy in question, the equipment that has been used to make the copy, the type of film used, and software adjustments to digital copies. All of this may be news to John, but it really isn't controversial to anyone who knows the first thing about photography, a group of which John appears not to be a member. No-one needs to prove any of those things. John is the one making claims that certain anomalies, such as the extra-long leg, are due to alteration. He needs to support his claims. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. If John wants us to accept that all the films and photos were altered, he needs to offer proof, not merely empty claims. He could start by justifying his claim that the Zapruder film was altered to produce Phil Willis's "extra-long leg". How might that have been done, exactly? Why was it done? Was it done deliberately, or was the "extra-long leg" an accidental by-product of an alteration done for another reason? If so, what was that reason? The more detail John can provide, the less ridiculous his claim will be. Going back to an earlier claim that John has been asked several times to prove, so far without success, can John finally show us how the Moorman photo could have been altered in the two and a half hours between the assassination and its broadcast on TV? If he can't even show that such a thing was physically possible, why should we take his claim seriously? Not that anyone does take any of his claims seriously, as far as I can tell. Again, John is either mistaken or dishonest. Since I have mentioned more than once that I am not a "supporter of the Warren Commission conclusions", John is unlikely to be mistaken. He has recently, and falsely, claimed that Pat Speer and Jonathan Cohen are also "Lone-Nutists". Why does John keep making these false claims? Is he being deliberately dishonest, or does he sincerely believe that anyone who questions his belief must be a supporter of the lone-gunman idea? If it's the former, he should resign from the forum. If it's the latter, he is absolutely wrong. The arguments against the lone-gunman idea do not require any, let alone all, of the Dealey Plaza photographic evidence to have been faked. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Zapruder film invalidates the lone-nut idea. If you want to dispose of the Zapruder film, you are disposing of the strongest item of evidence against "Lone-Nutism". Indeed so. And none of those 'researchers' has managed to do more than spot what they think are anomalies in the film, then jump to the conclusion that if something doesn't look quite right to them, the film must be a fake. It's amateurish, and it gives a bad impression of JFK assassination research in general. After maybe 30 years of trying, no-one has come up with anything that approaches proof of alteration. Anomaly-spotting is just a game, something to keep people busy who have nothing more productive to do. John Butler, in particular, really needs to find a new hobby, one that doesn't tempt him to make dishonest or mistaken claims about serious Warren Commission critics. Collecting beer-bottle caps, for example, is a fine hobby that many people find intellectually satisfying. Building scale models of the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House out of matchsticks is a bit more demanding, but would at least keep John busy. Anything to prevent him embarrassing himself further by making absurd claims that all the assassination films and photos are fakes.

Sandy Larsen writes: I'll try again. Sandy has not "shown" that the anomalies he mentions "cannot have occurred naturally". He has asserted that they cannot have occurred naturally. It needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. Sandy has not yet demonstrated this. No-one has done so at the ROKC forum thread either: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2523p25-peculiarity-of-frame-303 There appear to be three possible explanations: 1 - The blurring is the result of the normal operation of Zapruder's model of camera and lens on Kodachrome double-8 film. I presume Sandy is claiming that this cannot happen because it is a physical impossibility. Maybe Sandy will turn out to be correct, but he still needs to demonstrate that what he claims to be a physical impossibility is in fact a physical impossibility. To do that, he needs to demonstrate that the physical properties of the actual camera, lens and film cannot produce the blurring effect. As far as I'm aware (but I may be wrong), Sandy has not yet examined the actual camera, or a similar model of camera, or the actual lens, or a similar model of lens, or the actual Kodachrome film that is in the National Archives. 2 - The blurring is a result of the copying process. I presume Sandy is claiming that it is a physical impossibility for any copying process to produce the blurring effect. Again, if he is, he needs to demonstrate this. I doubt that he will be able to do so, since it is an uncontroversial fact that the copying of physical films can generate a range of visual anomalies, as can the copying and digital manipulation of digital copies. Numerous previous claims of alteration, such as John Butler's groundbreaking discovery that the film must have been altered because a copy of a copy of a copy shows Phil Willis with an extra-long leg, have turned out to be enthusiastic misreadings of simple visual anomalies caused by the copying process. Given the range of anomalies that the copying process can generate, and the depressing history of the amateurish and unsuccessful everything-is-a-fake anomaly-spotting craze over the last 30 years or so, the copying process surely provides an explanation that is plausible and almost impossible to refute. As far as I'm aware (but I may be wrong), Sandy has only examined digital copies of the film, not the actual Zapruder film that is in the National Archives. There are dozens of branches of NARA all over the US, but the one with JFK assassination-related material is at College Park, Maryland. Sandy can find contact details, directions, opening hours, and other useful information for his forthcoming visit by clicking this link: https://www.archives.gov/college-park If, on his visit to College Park, Sandy finds no blurring in the actual Zapruder film, he will know that it must be due to the copying process. He may be able to save himself the bother of a visit, by getting hold of better-quality copies than the ones he has used so far. If the better-quality copies don't show any blurring, again it must be due to the copying process. 3 - The blurring is the result of nefarious alteration. Once he has demonstrated the physical impossibility of options 1 and 2, Sandy will need to provide a plausible account of how a particular alteration might have produced that particular effect. Ideally, he would also be able to tell us why the alteration in question needed to have been made. In other words, he needs to answer three questions: How exactly was the film altered to produce the blurring effect? How was that particular alteration physically possible, given the materials and time available? What was so incriminating about that part of the film that it needed to be altered? I'd be surprised if Sandy can come up with plausible answers to those questions, since no-one has yet come up with a plausible answer to a more fundamental question. Why would anyone have wanted to alter the Zapruder film at all?

Sandy Larsen writes: The more mutually corroborating witnesses there are, the more likely they are to be right, in the absence of other factors. When dealing with purely witness evidence, it is relative numbers, not absolute numbers, that is the deciding factor. A larger group of mutually corroborating witnesses is more likely to be right than a smaller group. When one group of witnesses says that X happened and another group says that X didn't happen, we can reasonably decide which group is more likely to be right purely by counting the number of witnesses. We saw this recently with the question of whether JFK's car stopped on Elm Street. A smaller number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, and a larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down. Going by witness evidence alone, we must conclude that the car probably didn't stop. But when the question is one of witness evidence versus physical evidence, we need to consider the reliability of each type of evidence. Witness evidence is inherently unreliable; people often make mistakes when recalling events. Certain types of physical evidence, such as home movies and photographs, are inherently more reliable than the recollections of human witnesses. Home movies and photographs may be imperfect in that they sometimes contain visual anomalies, but they are not routinely faked. If a group of witnesses says that X happened, and a home movie or photograph shows that X didn't happen, we are surely obliged to go with the home movie or photograph, simply because, in the real world, it is far more likely that the witnesses were mistaken than that the home movie or photograph was faked. Now, if there is good, independent evidence that the home movie or photograph in question had in fact been faked, the inherent reliability of that physical evidence would no longer apply. Note the word 'independent' there. Independent evidence would not include any witnesses who simply contradict what the home movie or photograph shows. The faking of physical evidence needs to be demonstrated independently of such witnesses. As we saw a few pages ago when trying unsuccessfully to get John Butler to demonstrate how the Moorman photo was faked, it's a much more difficult task than the average 'everything is a fake' merchant thinks. In that case, the onus is on Sandy to demonstrate that the film has been altered. Again, there are questions that will need to be answered, such as: Which parts were altered? Was the entire film constructed from scratch? Or were one or more sections of the film altered? How was any alteration done? Sandy needs to show, at the very least, that whatever alteration he is proposing was physically possible, given the materials and time available. The more detailed his explanation, the less speculative his case will be. If he claims that a scene has been altered, and that same scene appears in another home movie or photograph, he will need to demonstrate that the other film or photo was altered too. How was it done? Again, the more details Sandy can provide, the better. No doubt there are other questions Sandy will need to answer, but these should keep him busy for now.

Sandy continues: There are a few questions that need to be answered before we can conclude that 'selective blurring' shows that the Zapruder film is a fake. Let's start with these: How do we know that selective blurring "defies the laws of physics", as Sandy described it earlier? That needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted, Butler-style. How do we know that selective blurring exists on the actual Zapruder film in the National Archives? Has the phenomenon been reported by anyone who has examined the original? If it exists only in copies and not in the original, then that's the end of the matter; it has to be a product of the copying process, even if we can't yet explain exactly how. If it does exist on the original film, how can we rule out physical and mechanical causes to do with the camera, the lens, or the film? If no-one has examined the actual film, and the only examples we have are from copies such as the Costella frames, how can we rule out the copying process as the cause? After all, pretty much every anomaly that has been claimed as proof of alteration over the last 30 years (Phil Willis has an extra-long leg! It's a fake!) has turned out to be due to the copying process. Does anyone know what physical transfers and software adjustments were used to produce the Costella frames and other online copies? If anyone does know this, have they used the same process again to see whether the same phenomenon is reproduced? Are there any better-quality copies available than the Costella frames? Do they show selective blurring? If they don't, then again it's all down to the copying process. If, as Sandy seems to be implying, selective blurring indicates that frames have been removed, how exactly would the removal of frames produce that particular effect? N.B. Jamey has pointed out correctly that this thread has wandered off-topic. Assuming that Sandy will give a detailed explanation for why 'selective blurring' indicates forgery, it might be best if he set up a new thread for that topic.

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy seems to misunderstand my point, which is that the two forms of evidence in question are not equally reliable. On the one hand, films and photos in general are very rarely altered. On the other hand, witnesses in general are often wrong. In real life, witnesses are mistaken a lot more often than films and photos get faked. If there is a conflict between a generally reliable form of evidence, such as films or photos, and a generally unreliable form of evidence, such as the recollections of human witnesses, surely it is rational to believe the former over the latter, all other factors being equal. At what point should the number of fallible human witnesses make a difference? More to the point, how many witnesses would there have to be for Sandy to believe them over, say, the Zapruder film or the Moorman photo? We've seen on the other current Zapruder film-based thread that the large-numbers-of-witnesses argument doesn't support the most popular claim for alteration, namely that frames were removed to conceal a car-stop: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=455484 Quite the opposite, in fact. Only a minority of witnesses claimed that the car stopped; many more claimed that the car slowed down, just as we see on the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films. If you put credence on the numbers of witnesses, the evidence becomes even stronger that the film wasn't altered. Is there any claim for alteration to which the large-numbers-of-witnesses argument applies?

John Butler writes: John tried this trick almost exactly three years ago. On that occasion it was 50 witnesses who, according to John, said that JFK wasn't shot where all the films and photos show he was shot. But when you look at what his witnesses actually said, many of them are perfectly consistent with what the other witnesses said and with what the films and photos show: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25659-mass-hysteria-in-dealey-plaza/?do=findComment&comment=398096 As Ray Mitcham asked John on page 4 of that thread, "Are you completely mad or just pretending?"

On page 14, Jamey Flanagan writes: This was dealt with back on page 3. Only a minority of witness statements claimed that the car actually came to a stop. A minority of that minority claimed that the car swerved to the left-hand curb as it came to a stop. Far more witness statements claimed that the car merely slowed down, just as we see on the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films. This page looks at the witness statements and concludes that well over 80% of the spectators who had a clear view of the car did not notice that it had stopped: http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street On the one hand, we have a small number of witnesses who claimed that the car stopped. On the other hand, we have a larger number of witnesses who claimed that the car slowed down, but who appear not to have noticed that it had stopped. In addition, we have three home movies which agree with the majority of the witnesses; the films show the car slowing down but not stopping. Which evidence should we believe, and which should we disbelieve? There are two alternatives. Either: a small number of witnesses were mistaken, or a larger number of witnesses were mistaken and the Zapruder film was altered to conceal the car-stop and the Muchmore film was altered to conceal the car-stop, and the Nix film was altered to conceal the car-stop. And, perhaps, as well as these three films, the Bronson film and the Moorman photo were altered to conceal the car's swerve to the left-hand curb. It isn't difficult to work out which alternative is the more likely to be true. There is no good reason to suppose that the car stopped or that any films or photos were altered to cover it up. Several witnesses spoke of JFK's head moving backwards. Check out Pat Speer's collection of witness statements: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter7morepiecesofthepuzzle As Jamey mentions, many witnesses spoke of JFK's head moving forward. They were correct; his head moved forward after having moved sharply back and to the left. Those witness statements are consistent with what we see in the home movies, and do not imply that any of the home movies or photographs were altered. Different witnesses at different times reported different aspects of what they had seen. They had experienced a sudden, unexpected and traumatic event. We can't expect them to recall everything with photographic accuracy. As someone pointed out elsewhere: Moving backward, moving forward, slumping: all of these descriptions were used by different witnesses at different times, and all of them match what we see in the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, and the Nix film.

John Butler seems to be sticking with his claim that the Moorman photo was altered by having its book-depository background replaced by a grassy-knoll background. But he still hasn't come up with an explanation of how this might have been done. We know that the photo's current grassy-knoll background existed as early as two and a half hours after the assassination. Any alteration must have been made within those two and a half hours. It's up to John to provide a plausible explanation of how it might have been done. He doesn't seem to have even tried to provide any explanation at all. Let's see if we can help John. Here are a couple of possible explanations: The conspirators snatched the photo, took it to the mobile photo-alteration lab near Dealey Plaza that was being used to add face masks to the Altgens photos, and snapped their fingers and said "hey presto!", and that's how the background changed from the book depository to the grassy knoll. Creatures from the Planet Zog snatched the photo, beamed it up to their spaceship, put it into one of their super-duper intergalactic warp-factor-ten photo-alteration machines, and out popped an altered photo. Those are the most plausible explanations I can think of. Can John come up with anything better?

I claimed that, in the absence of a plausible explanation of how an image might have been altered, we should assume that any witnesses who contradict the image are mistaken. Sandy Larsen disagreed: If witnesses are all we have, then numbers might be significant. It's more likely that the majority will be correct than that the minority will be correct, all other factors being equal. But in a contest between witnesses and images, the images have a built-in advantage. We always have a plausible explanation of why witnesses might be mistaken: the uncontroversial fact that witnesses often make mistakes. We don't always have a plausible explanation of why an image might be inauthentic. What we do have is a plausible explanation of why the image is likely to be authentic: the uncontroversial fact that altering images is not a trivial task. The burden of proof is on those who claim that a photo or home movie has been altered. The claim needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. As John Butler has discovered, explaining how an image was altered is much more difficult than it might at first appear. Incidentally, Sandy's earlier point about blurring in certain frames of the Zapruder film has been taken up at the ROKC forum, with contributions from a couple of people with relevant professional experience: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2517p50-looks-like-more-photo-manipulation-from-h-l-land#38358 That thread includes a link to another thread, where the discussion continues.

While we're on the subject of John Butler misrepresenting what his critics have written, here's another example. He asks: If you go back to page 3, you'll find my first reference to when the photo appeared in newspapers: "The following day" was the 23rd. The newspaper front page I gave a link to, and which included the Moorman photo, was dated Saturday 23rd. For John's information, here again is that example of Moorman's photo on the front page of a newspaper on the day after the assassination: https://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres48.jpg John continues: As Richard Trask explained, and as Jean Hill confirmed, the Polaroid was copied and circulated among journalists on the afternoon of the assassination, not 27 hours later. As I explained, any alterations must have been made before those copies were circulated, because the background that John claims is a fake was present in the copies that were published in newspapers the next day. Thanks to Mark's detective work, we know that the Moorman photograph showed the grassy knoll in the background at around 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the assassination. Again, this demonstrates that the alterations John proposes must have been done before then. How was the Moorman photo faked in the limited time available? As far as I can tell, the closest John has come to explaining how his supposed alteration was done is his statement that there was "Plenty of time to make alterations." He needs to explain how it was done, not merely assert that it happened. The more detail John can go into, the more credible his explanation will be. John could start by demonstrating that altering a Polaroid in that way was actually possible. As Jonathan asked earlier, "Please show us how someone could even forge a Polaroid photo to begin with." Alternatively, John could admit that: Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid is genuine. Moorman and Hill were standing roughly opposite Zapruder, where they claimed to have been standing, and where dozens of photos and films show them to have been standing. None of those dozens of images were faked to hide Moorman and Hill's presence near the corner of Elm and Houston Streets. John's claim about "this alteration of all, I say all, films and photos that show anything to do with the assassination" is utter nonsense. JFK wasn't shot on Houston Street or Main Street or Atlantis or Mars, but on Elm Street, just as all those photos and home movies show.

Eddy Bainbridge asks: As with any complex body of evidence, there are inconsistencies and contradictions. You'll need to decide which items of evidence ought to be discarded and which should be believed. It's an uncontroversial fact that witnesses are fallible and often make mistakes. It's also an uncontroversial fact that making significant alterations to photos and home movies is not a trivial task, especially when there is only a limited amount of time available. It's easy to resolve a contradiction between witnesses' recollections and, say, the Moorman photo or the Zapruder film. We have an obvious, plausible explanation for how the witnesses might be wrong, but we don't yet have an equally plausible explanation for how the physical evidence might have been manipulated. Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation (and the more detailed it is, the more plausible it becomes), we must assume that the images are authentic and any witnesses who contradict them are mistaken. It boils down to the fact that the burden of proof is on those who claim that this or that photo or film has been altered. So far, no-one has come up with the necessary proof. As for the "moving head wounds", I'd recommend looking at Pat Speer's website. See Pat's recent comment on this thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=455253

John Butler writes: No problem! We all get carried away sometimes. It seems to have been shown on TV and distributed to journalists within a few hours. It appeared in newspapers the next day. I can give you the relevant passages from Trask's Pictures of the Pain. Firstly, from p.238, the time of the TV screening: <quote> By about 3:16 CST, NBC was again reporting through its WBAP affiliate on witnesses to the shooting, and Moorman's photo of the President was shown on camera followed by a filmed interview of the two women. </quote> Trask cites "NBC ibid. [telecast, 11/22/1963, from videotape at The Kennedy Library], TNN-222." It may well be available online somewhere, if anyone needs further confirmation. Here, from p.242, is what happened to the photo: <quote> The women later recalled that at the press room they allowed the pictures to be examined, and they were out of Moorman's physical custody on several occasions. According to researcher Gary Mack, who spoke extensively with Moorman some 20 years after the events, the assassination photo was quickly taken to the Dallas Times Herald offices, which shared a photo lab with UPI. The photo was copied there and returned to Moorman at the Sheriff's Office. ... Copies of Moorman's assassination photo had been made by the press, possibly without Moorman's permission. ... According to Hill, Moorman "... sold the rights, the publishing rights of it, not the original picture, but they had already -- AP and UPI had already picked it up because Featherstone stole it." </quote> Notes: James Featherstone was the Dallas Times Herald reporter who tried to obtain Moorman's photo for his paper. Trask attributes the Mack claim to "Lecture of Gary Mack at the Pittsburgh, PA, conference, 11/19/1998." Hill's statement comes from her Warren Commission testimony at WC Hearings and Exhibits, vol.6, p.220: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=230. Costella refers to "the idea that a copy of Moorman’s famous Polaroid was 'smuggled' out on the day of the assassination, as folklore maintains". It wasn't "folklore", but Jean Hill herself, who claimed that the photo had been removed by newspaper reporters while she and Moorman were in the Sheriff's office on the afternoon of the assassination. For an example of Moorman's photo appearing in newspapers the following day, here's the front page of The Fresno Bee on Saturday 23rd: https://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres48.jpg That website gives links to plenty of front pages from the days after the assassination, so you may be able to find other examples: https://www.downhold.org/lowry/JFK-NUPFRONTS.html What do we see in the background of the photo on the front page of The Fresno Bee? It's the grassy knoll, not the book depository. Any nefarious alteration, such as John's suggestion that the background was replaced, must have been done before those newspaper reporters copied the photo. Does John have a plausible explanation of how such a complex alteration could have been done in the limited time available?

John Butler writes: John has made approximately 3,000 comments on this forum. If I ever have a day with nothing better to do, I may trawl through them, even though the task would make my brain hurt. Until then, could John please set aside a couple of minutes to explain to us how the Moorman photo could have been extensively altered on the afternoon of the assassination, before it was shown on TV and distributed to journalists? That isn't too much to ask, is it? John has made a claim, so it is up to him to justify his claim. How was the alteration possible, given that there was so little time in which to do it? If John can't come up with an explanation, will he be brave enough to admit that he was wrong, and that the Moorman photo is genuine?

When challenged to prove his far-fetched claims of massive photo alteration, John Butler resorts to implying that his critics support the lone-gunman idea. "Lone-Nutism" is the word he uses. I'm not a "Lone-Nutist". As far as I'm aware, Pat and Jonathan are not "Lone-Nutists" either. Very few people on this forum appear to be "Lone-Nutists". You don't need to be a "Lone-Nutist" to be unconvinced by the idea that this or that photo or home movie was faked. Not only that, but you don't need to claim that any photos or home movies were faked in order to question the "Lone-Nutism" idea. The case against the "Lone-Nutism" idea does not require that any photos or home movies were faked. Does John not grasp this fact?

John Butler writes: It makes no difference who created the diagram. My point was that Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid cannot have been altered (by removing the book depository from the background and replacing it with the grassy knoll) because the picture was taken from behind the car, not in front of it. The only way the picture could have been taken from behind the car and have the book depository in the background is if Moorman and Hill had been standing roughly opposite the main entrance to the depository. We know that they weren't, for the reasons Pat Speer has given. Even if John wants to believe that the diagram is accurate, the relative positions of Moorman and the depository wouldn't have allowed Moorman to photograph the car from behind with the depository in the background. Dozens of photographs and at least four home movies show Moorman and Hill standing roughly opposite Zapruder. Surely not even John Butler would claim that every single one of those films and photos were faked! Or maybe he would: I don't know if John was pulling our collective leg when he made that ridiculous pronouncement. I hope he was. If he's still claiming that the Moorman photo was altered, could he please address the problem that has been pointed out several times now and which he has still not answered? The problem is that if John's all-powerful masterminds altered the photo, they would have had a very limited amount of time in which to do so. How does John think they did it? Did they snap their fingers and say "hey presto!", or was there more to it than that? John should feel free to give as detailed an explanation as he can manage. How was it possible to alter the Moorman photo before it was shown on television and distributed to the press on the afternoon of the assassination? If John can't or won't answer that question, will he admit that the Moorman photograph is genuine?

Jean Hill was not a reliable witness. She was confused about several things, and changed her mind several times. It means nothing that she jotted down a diagram that places the book depository behind the presidential car. Of course, there was an instant when Mary Moorman, the car and the book depository were in that particular alignment. But Hill couldn't have known that the photo in question was taken at that instant, because she wasn't taking the pictures; Mary Moorman was. The diagram was simply the product of a mistaken recollection. We can be absolutely certain that the book depository was not in the background of Moorman's famous photo, simply because of the alignment of Moorman and the car. Look at the photo. Look at the angle of JFK and Jackie in the back seat. The picture was obviously taken from just behind the car. Look at the police motorcyclist who is between the camera and the car. He is behind the rear wheel of the car. Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid was taken a fraction of a second after the car had passed Moorman and Hill. Not only do the details of the photo prove this, but all of the other photos and home movies which show Moorman at around the time of the head shot are perfectly consistent with this. Now, if the photo was taken immediately after the car had passed Moorman and Hill, what would we expect to see in the background? Would we expect to see the three spectators standing on the steps that lead to the fence on the grassy knoll? We would, wouldn't we? And what do we in fact see? Why, we see the three spectators standing on the steps that lead to the fence on the grassy knoll. We know that Mary Moorman did take a photo with the book depository in the background; as I mentioned earlier, you can find it on page 233 of Trask's Pictures of the Pain. Jean Hill's testimony makes it clear that she was aware of the existence of this photo: She merely confused one photo, which did indeed show part of the book depository (though not the sixth floor, unfortunately), with the one which shows JFK getting shot. There is no mystery here. As with many other cases of inconsistencies between witness recollections and the photographic evidence, it's simply one more example of the fallibility of human memory.

John Butler claims that Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid might be a fake, because it ought to have the book depository in the background rather than the grassy knoll. As we have seen, he is mistaken, because there was no time for any such alterations to have been made. The source of his mistake seems to be a statement by Jean Hill that Mary Moorman took a photo with the book depository in the background. Moorman did in fact take a photo with the book depository in the background, but it was not the photo John is referring to. If he turns to page 233 of Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain, he will see a reproduction of Moorman's third Polaroid, which shows a police motorcyclist, who was an old school friend of Moorman's, on Elm Street with the book depository in the background. I presume John accepts that there was no time to make any sort of complex alterations to Moorman's fifth Polaroid, the famous one with the grassy knoll in the background, and that it is genuine. Will he admit publicly that the photo is genuine? If he still thinks the photo is a fake, will he tell us exactly what's wrong with it, and explain how any alterations could have been made in the very limited time available?

John Butler wrote: Pat Speer replied: John, knowing that he has a losing hand, goes all in: That's how to win an argument! Step one: claim that a piece of evidence is a fake. Step two: if another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts your claim, just claim that the second piece of evidence is also a fake. Your claims become unfalsifiable. You can't lose! The problem with using this technique is that, sooner or later, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and everything will be a fake. Unfortunately, John has reached that point. He wrote earlier: By the way, if any casual visitors have stumbled across this thread, you may be getting the wrong impression. I'm sure that only a small minority of Warren Commission critics believe that a significant amount, let alone all, of the evidence has been faked. (Apologies to any poker aficionados if my 'losing hand' and 'all-in' analogy is inaccurate.)

I asked John Butler if he was aware that the act of copying a physical film will generate visual anomalies such as the ones he is fond of citing as evidence of alteration. He replied: Oh dear! I'm sure that John, like everyone else, does actually accept this obvious and uncontroversial fact. Unlike everyone else, he just doesn't want to admit it. He continues: It's clear that Costella didn't make his copies directly from the original Zapruder film, because copies that are far more detailed than Costella's can be found in, for example, David Wrone's book which I mentioned a few pages ago. The frames John Butler uses must be several generations removed from the actual Zapruder film. For that reason, those frames must contain a number of visual anomalies, which provide a straightforward, everyday explanation for odd-looking features such as Phil Willis having an extra-long leg. If a straightforward, everyday explanation is available, it's a mistake to use a far-fetched explanation instead. Incidentally, Costella's collection of individual frames is a useful resource, and it was good of him to create it for us. But he makes some of the same mistakes that others do. From the page John Butler quotes: No, if it's simple proof of anything, it's that a few guys in a car got their recollections wrong! As we learned a few pages ago with the 'car-stop' witnesses, a consistent body of physical evidence is more likely to be accurate than a handful of fallible human eye-witnesses.

John Butler writes: Pat pointed out that "the photo was shown on television around 2 1/2 hours after the shooting". That's true, but it isn't the only problem. Copies were made that afternoon and distributed to journalists. The photo appeared in many newspapers the following day. All John needs to do is examine those newspapers, some of which I'm sure are available online, and see how many of their versions of the photo have the book depository in the background. I suspect he'll find that none of them do, and that the background is the one we are all familiar with. What this means is that if Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid was altered, the alteration must have taken place before the copies were made and distributed to the journalists on the afternoon of the assassination. Can John come up with a plausible technical explanation of how this alteration might have been done in the very limited time available? If not, will he admit that the Moorman photo is genuine?

Chris Barnard writes: Who is struggling to debunk what? I made the point that many of the claims of alteration, over many years, have been easily debunked. I gave a link to a claim which I debunked, without any struggle, just the other day: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27630-the-other-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=454632 The claims I was referring to as crazy are both far-fetched and supported by grossly insufficient evidence. If 'crazy' isn't the appropriate word, how about 'absurd' or 'ridiculous'? I hope I do. But no-one's perfect. Makes me right about what? I was pointing out some similarities between the more far-fetched JFK assassination conspiracy theories and claims that the moon landings didn't happen and that the earth is flat. I presume the similarities I mentioned are obvious. I wasn't claiming that the more far-fetched conspiracy theorists are representative of those who doubt the lone-nut theory. If anything, I was trying to show that the opposite is true. Crazy or ridiculous or absurd conspiracy theories are neither typical nor necessary, and the people who promote them are not representative of Warren Commission critics in general. The case against the lone-nut theory does not depend on believing that the Zapruder film or any of the other home movies or photographs are fakes. Or that JFK's body was snatched on Air Force One and surgically altered. Or that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term doppelganger scheme. Or any other equally far-fetched claims. I hope Chris doesn't think that the only alternative to believing that Oswald did it all by himself is to believe in a ginormous conspiracy run by super-powerful masterminds who planned everything in detail and had the ability to fake vast amounts of evidence. If there was a conspiracy, which I think is pretty much indisputable these days, it was a plausible, realistic one, not a far-fetched one involving a cast of thousands with super-human powers. I'm sure Chris can appreciate that an outsider, someone with a casual interest in the JFK assassination, who stumbles across this forum hoping to find out more about the subject, might get the wrong impression if all the nonsensical stuff goes unchallenged.

John Butler writes: As we have seen many times before, John appears not to understand a couple of very basic facts: He is looking at a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of an 8mm home movie, and not the original film. Each time a physical film is copied, anomalies are generated. Odd-looking features such as extra-long legs are precisely the sort of thing you would expect to see if you're looking at a poor-quality, several-generations-old, copy of what is already a tiny detail on a film. Trivial anomalies such as these provide no evidence at all that the original film has been altered. Does John genuinely not grasp these points?

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy merely stated that some blurred images in a copy of a copy of a copy of an 8mm home movie "defied the laws of physics". That doesn't constitute an explanation. It's quite a claim to make, and it would be interesting to see if he can come up with an actual explanation that would satisfy a professional physicist.

Chris Barnard writes: It isn't poor taste at all. The two groups are remarkably similar in several ways. Firstly, both groups use the same inadequate method: amateurish anomaly-spotting. They spot something in the evidence that kinda looks a bit strange to them; they can't think of a plausible explanation; and they jump to the most ridiculously far-fetched conclusion they can think of. Sometimes this is because they lack the relevant technical expertise. But not always. As we have seen on another current thread, straightforward explanations for these anomalies usually aren't difficult to find, for those who are open-minded enough to make the effort. Sadly, both groups of people often simply lack the motivation to question their own beliefs. Secondly, both groups have been trying for years and have failed to prove their case. Just look at all the threads on this forum that have been devoted to the latest 'proof' that the Zapruder film, or this or that Dealey Plaza photo, were altered. None of these cases stand up. At best, all that these people are left with is the odd visual anomaly that doesn't yet have an explanation. Almost always, they don't even have that much. This stuff has been going on for more than twenty years. One claim of fakery runs into the inevitable dead-end and fizzles out, only for another one to take its place. As Alex Wilson describes it, "and once again the circus comes trundling into town." People keep wasting their time with this stuff instead of doing productive research, probably because productive research is difficult and speculation is easy. Thirdly, there is a certain amount of overlap between the different groups. Most famously, or infamously, the late Jack White thought the moon landings were faked; he thought the Zapruder film was a fake; he thought that no planes hit the World Trade Center; and he helped to dream up the notion that Oswald and his mother were part of an elaborate long-term doppelganger scheme that was set up for a reason that no-one has been able to work out. If anything, the JFK assassination's 'everything is a fake' cult is even less rational than the moon-landings cult or the flat-earth cult. As Pat has pointed out, altering the Zapruder film into its current state is the last thing the authorities would have wanted to do (even in the unlikely event that they had been capable of doing it). The Zapruder film is the item of physical evidence that most strongly indicates that more than one person shot JFK. If you discard the film, you instantly make the lone-nut theory much less implausible.