Jeremy Bojczuk

Jean Ceulemans writes:

Quote

I believe I have read somewhere there was a total of 21 people taking pictures or filming at the scene (or close)?

Try controlling those... 

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:

Quote

you [Jonathan] throw up the spector [sic] of many, unspecified films that also could have contradicted the Oswald story.

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:

Quote

the planners of the JFKA ... planned to cover up their involvement and blame Oswald as a lone assassin.  But that discrepancy between what actually happened and blaming Oswald as the lone shooter made a series of actions necessary to cover up their involvement.  Snatching the body at Parkland so they could control the autopsy.  Murdering their designated patsy, Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer.  Organizing the WC so that it could be relied on to frame Oswald.

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!

Quote

It strains all credulity, all logic, to claim that professional killers like those that murdered JFK would have done so without a plan in place to save their skin and get way with it

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'.

Quote

some planners ... decided to blame Oswald as the lone assassin, as we know was done

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:

Quote

LIFE had just stopped the presses on their previously planned 11/29/1963 issue and entirely reworked it to accommodate the story of the assassination, as well as spent $1,540,073.53 for the "original" Zapruder film and we are expected to believe that instead of using full color stills from the film (as LIFE would utilize in all future editions featuring Zapruder stills) they printed grainy low quality stills from a dirty dupe of the film?

this makes sense only if it was because the Secret Service and the CIA maintained possession of the extant "original" Zapruder film during the two NPIC briefing board sessions throughout the weekend, thus forcing LIFE to make do with a black and white dirty dupe of the altered Zapruder film that was struck contemporaneous therewith and quickly couriered to Chicago for the 11/29/1963 edition.

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:

Quote

I never said the logical inferences I draw *from evidence* are inevitable consequences!

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:

1. either those inferences do need to be the inevitable consequences of his premises,
2. 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.

Quote

Jackson "got hold of" the original film when Life bought rights to it Saturday morning.  Only you would try to claim this is speculation that needs proof.

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.

Quote

That the CIA had the means to transport the film to its NPIC lab is a fact.  Dispute that if you want, but while you're at it explain how anyone else but the CIA had access to either of its labs.

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.

Quote

Yes, we agree, the murder was not set up show it was done done by a lone nut. ... Incredibly, you now use that fact to argue that therefore the planners would have had *no reason* to alter the Z film.  Which recorded what actually happened.

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.

Quote

You have given the precise reason why something had to be done with the Z film:  to deal with the glaring discrepancy between what the film showed actually happened and what their Oswald story claimed.

Something was done with it! The original, unaltered film was largely hidden from public view for over a decade!

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

FWIW, I have been to a number of conferences in which this topic has been discussed, and have had many personal talks with people whose primary focus is on who did it, and the vast majority of "scholars" if you will believe the assassination and cover-up were separate acts.

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:

Quote

Roger uses logical inferences in his argument and you keep saying that all he does is speculate. They are not the same thing.

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:

1. the CIA knew that Life possessed the original Zapruder film;
2. CD Jackson, the owner of Life, had links with the CIA;
3. it would have been simple for the CIA to ask Jackson to get hold of the film on their behalf;
4. 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:

Quote

The idea the Jackson and the CIA considered which party should get to use the original Z film is a logical inference from what we know

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:

Quote

They knew that Life had the original.  CD Jackson had worked for the CIA and  understood that the officials' need for the original film as a national security matter far surpassed Life's desire to make stills for its magazine.  It was actually a simple matter for the CIA to take the original film for Life, with Jackson's agreement, and send it to their labs so the briefing boards could be done

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.

Quote

You have repeatedly asserted that the film used for the briefing boards was SS's copy because that was all that was available to the officials.  They had no choice.  But that is false as we can see.

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.

Quote

The lives of the planners were on the line.  Yet you want us to believe they would have gone ahead with the murder without a plan in place to get away with it!

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:

Quote

According to Peter Dale Scott, whose work you hold in high esteem, the plotters could have chosen Phase 2 -- lone gunman --  had they wanted to. So are you saying here that the plotters had already chosen Phase 1 -- conspiracy --by the time the shooting with multiple shooters had begun?

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.

Quote

My point is that the evidence indicates that the decision between Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be made by the plotters wasn't meant to be made for at least a few days after the killing.

The evidence I cited (the actual circumstances of the assassination) indicates that any such decision had been made long before JFK arrived in Dallas.

Quote

It is clear to me, and the evidence shows, that the plotters decided that "the best evidence" for the case needed alteration to make it compatible with Phase-2 (lone nut), whereas the rest of the coverup could be done ad hoc.

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.

Quote

the altered [best evidence" would indicate that Oswald did it alone, thus making it easy to blame Oswald. Which would allow the government to shut down any further investigation

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.

Quote

It is inconceivable that a post-assassination-initiated coverup could have possibly triggered that early surgery.

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.

Quote

I can give two possible ways that could have happened.

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:

Quote

I *think* its most likely that CIA brass and CD Jackson got together to plan how they could gain control of the film, recognizing its importance.  Life would front for the CIA, who of course couldn't itself bid, win the bid for the original film (they outbid others by a lot), probably using CIA money, and at some point pass it to the CIA for inspection at its labs.

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:

Quote

This is an amazing assertion:  that the people who implemented, and presumably planned the murder were not the same people who covered it up.  Or if they were, that needs to be demonstrated somehow.

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.

Quote

The coverup began within hours of the murder:  The message to the planes coming back to DC, the snatching of the body from Parkland, the murder of Oswald Sunday morning, etc.  I take this as evidence that a coordinated coverup was preplanned with the murder as one piece and by the same people.

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.

Quote

It seems axiomatic to me that the killers would not have carried out such a risky and high stakes murder without having a plan in place to cover up their involvement and blame someone else.

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.

Quote

What I said was, when the desire of the officials in DC to use the original film for the briefing boards was made known to Jackson

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.

Quote

The idea that all of Jackson's behavior that weekend was consistent with Life's commercial interests is nuts. Life paid $1.5 million (in today's money) for what was a commercial gold mine, then refused to cash it in by showing the film publicly. They were hiding the film

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.

Quote

You have no evidence that the film delivered to the NPIC that Saturday came from the SS, other than the couriers said they were from the SS.

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:

Quote

Roger, if you want to stop Jeremy from pointing out the parts of your theory that are speculative, you could try prefacing each of those parts by saying "it could be," "I believe that," or some such thing.

 But that would include ... pretty much everything, wouldn't it?

Roger writes:

Quote

You [Tom] think to be evidence all such information must be documented, contained in a document, in order to be considered something on which a conclusion may be based.

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:

Quote

I said it was a *fact* that the CIA had much more important reasons for using the original film than did Life. ... If you think Jackson would have rejected a CIA request for the original film, explain why.

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.

Quote

these officials would have discussed which version of the film they would need to do the boards. ... It follows that these officials would have decided using the original film for the boards was clearly preferable.

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:

Quote

We have "no positive evidence that original film showed up at NPIC", in your view, because you will only accept a document from the CIA acknowledging such.

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:

Quote

a copy of the Z Film does not provide the same clarity as the original.  I said that's a logical reason for the officials responsible for finding out what happened to want to use the original for their briefing boards.

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.

Quote

Moreover why would they willingly use inferior information

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.

Quote

you must admit the original Z film contradicted the Oswald story officials were already spreading (from the WH Situation Room, e.g).

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.

Quote

Officials from the WH and CIA would have to consider that contradiction and its impact on their story.  They would need the original film to deal with that were they to find such evidence on their briefing boards.

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:

Quote

there was no reason for the White House and CIA, as part of an official investigation, to even consider using a copy when they didn't have to.

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!

Quote

I gave a second reason for them to prefer the original, which you have ignored.  If they had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story ...

I ignored that specific claim because it comes under the general heading of pure speculation. Note the word "if" in Roger's second sentence.

Quote

Altering or destroying a copy would accomplish nothing while Life still had the original and was going to publish stills from it.

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.

Quote

Wow! Your evidence for the "fact" that both couriers were from the SS is..... that's what they said!

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?

Quote

You've given no reason to suspect anyone else [other than CIA officers] delivered it.

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.

Quote

Looking for a" trace" of "documentary evidence" that the White House and CIA wanted to use the original film, not a copy, to make briefing boards is a fool's errand.  It's obvious that's what they wanted.

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?

Quote

choosing Oswald as the patsy created the need to alter the Z film that contradicted their story.

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:

Quote

Why Do So Many in the JFK Research Community Resist the Mounting Evidence that the Zapruder Film is an Altered Film?

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:

Quote

I believe [there we go!] that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening [speculation], three new first generation copies were struck from it [speculation], as well as at least one “dirty dupe” [speculation] for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago [speculation].  Only after these products were exposed at Rochester [speculation], early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC [speculation]

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:

Quote

There is no reason to believe that Johnson and the CIA would have assumed a copy was good enough.

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?

Quote

There is no question that the planners of the murder would, as an integral part of the coverup, have settled on blaming a patsy before going ahead with the murder. ... The killers' top priority was to make sure JFK didn't escape the ambush.  That's why they set up multiple shooters firing from different directions.

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).

Quote

(I'm assuming you have abandoned your original assertion that the planners would have destroyed the Z film instead of trying to alter it)

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.

David Josephs writes:

Quote

Here's the impossible head turn ... for which experiments have been done and have found this to be physically impossible.

Which experiments? Who conducted them? Where are they published? The Journal of Moon-Landings Studies? The American Academy of Faked Photographs Quarterly Review? Who peer-reviewed them?

Quote

What's impossible is meeting your need for a "peer-reviewed journal" with anyone willing to actually say what the rest of us know.

I'm not quite sure what David is trying to convey with that curiously formed sentence, except that he thinks "what the rest of us know" counts for anything at all. Perhaps he is trying to say that no reputable peer-reviewed journal would consider publishing an article that's critical of the lone-gunman claim. If so, he's wrong. I know of two serious scientific journals which published articles critical of the neutron activation analysis carried out by Vincent Guinn for the HSCA.

I wrote earlier that the people who need to be convinced are experts in film technology. Depending on the claim, other experts might also need to be convinced. If you want us to believe that Greer's head-turn really is anatomically impossible, you'll need to convince experts in human anatomy.

If you want us to believe that the Zapruder film that's in the archives is a copy and not the original, it's the experts in film technology you'll need to convince. As it happens, one expert in film technology has in fact examined it closely, several times, and concluded that the film is not a copy (see http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf). If, as appears to be the case, the film is not a copy, it follows that the numerous alleged alterations which required the film to have been copied, cannot have happened (frames taken out to conceal a non-existent car-stop, for example).

If you want to overturn that expert opinion, you'll need to find another expert to do that for you. Until someone with the proper expertise examines the film and explains why Roland Zavada was mistaken, the current state of play is that the film in the archives is the actual physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination.

If anyone wants the film-fakery stuff to be taken seriously, they need to treat it as a serious scientific claim. Assemble the evidence, write it up, submit it to a reputable journal, and see what happens. If no-one takes this elementary step, the subject will continue to be dismissed, correctly, as amateurish moon-landings-style speculation.

Quote

the removal of the slowdown/stop and the removal of scores of frames at the Elm/Houston corner

Right on cue, here comes the amateurish moon-landings-style speculation!

Quote

peer-review when that's exactly what we do here

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but saying "yeah, that blob in that poor-quality copy doesn't look quite right to me either" on a web forum does not constitute peer review.

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

My proof of the gaping head-wound location is that it is statistically impossible for 40 out of 45 gaping wound witnesses to corroborate each other by placing the wound in the very same location as each other, and yet be wrong. It is a mathematical proof.

Well, Sandy will need to run that past some experts, if he's claiming that evidence as subjective and malleable as witness statements can constitute mathematical proof of anything. Those experts might ask:

• Did all of those 40 witnesses place the wound in exactly the same location? If not, how much variation was there?
• If any witnesses were interviewed more than once, did each witness place the wound in exactly the same location each time? If not, how much variation was there?
• How precisely was the location determined in each case? Was it just someone holding his hand above his own head, or were there verbal descriptions, or did the witness mark the location on a model of a human head so that a precise measurement could be taken?
• How long after the event did these witnesses make these claims?
• How closely did each witness come to the president's body? Did they all handle the body, or did some of them only see it from a distance?
• Who was asking the questions of each witness? Did any of the questioners have an agenda that might have influenced the way they asked their questions? Were the questioners leading the witness at all? Were they interested in a precise location or a general location?

And so on. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandy's witness evidence turns out to be not quite as uniform as he thinks it is. On the plus side, it can't be as embarrassing as his failure to spot an obvious example of the parallax effect and proclaiming that as proof of alteration.

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

Of course I'm sayng that Johnson and the CIA wanted briefing boards prepared that Saturday in order to see if the Z film contradicted the Oswald story that had already started to put out.  And if so to what extent.  I've said, several times. that's one reason why using only the original film for the boards would suffice.

There's no reason to assume that "using only the original film for the boards would suffice." 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?

Since the only version of the film within hundreds of miles of Washington on the Saturday afternoon was the Secret Service's first-day copy, a copy was all they had access to. Until Roger provides actual evidence (i.e. not speculation) that the original was sent to Washington, or that "Johnson and the CIA" or any of their minions believed that only an original film would do, there is no good reason to believe that the film at NPIC was anything other than the Secret Service's first-day copy.

Quote

In fact it's clear to me that the murder would not have proceeded without a story in place the planners had agreed on, to among other things, hide their involvement, blame someone else, and get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place.

Roger is implying that "the planners", a term which seems to be synonymous with "Johnson and the CIA", had intended as part of their pre-assassination plan to blame the assassination on a lone-nut patsy.

But if the blame-it-on-a-lone-gunman-patsy element was decided in advance, it made no sense to have JFK eliminated in public by multiple gunmen, in front of hundreds of people who might capture images which contradicted the lone-gunman story. For the same reason, it made no sense to try to alter any of the films or photographs, because there could have been any number of other films or photographs in existence which might have exposed the alteration.

If, on the other hand, the blame-it-on-a-lone-gunman-patsy element was only decided after the event, on the Saturday afternoon once news of Oswald's arrest reached Washington (Roger mentions "the message from the White House Situation Room a few hours after the murder"), the people who made that decision cannot have been the people who instigated a public assassination using more than one gunman. It isn't credible that the same people would have been happy for spectators to capture evidence of multiple gunmen, only to change their minds when someone gets arrested in Dallas less than an hour and a half after the assassination.

In both of these scenarios, there would have been no reason to alter the Zapruder film, or indeed any of the other films and photographs. That's why no good evidence exists that any such alteration happened.

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating that Sandy's claim ("We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered") uses a definition of 'proof' that most people would not agree with.

Sandy uses 'proof' in the sense that most people would use the word 'evidence': a statement or observation that is consistent with a particular proposition. For example, Sandy's head-wound witnesses and the apparent anomalies in the Zapruder film are consistent with the proposition that the film has been altered in some way; and the apparent anomalies in the moon-landings photographs are consistent with the proposition that the moon-landings photographs are not photographs of actual moon landings.

But most people would define proof as something stronger than that: a statement or observation that can only reasonably be interpreted in one way. If, as appears to be the case, those witnesses and anomalies have reasonable alternative explanations, they don't constitute proof as most people would understand the term.

While I'm in a boring pedantic mood, I'll also deal with something Sandy wrote earlier:

Quote

In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

It isn't up to "critics of the theory to prove it wrong." Critics are given the opportunity to show that a proposition has, for whatever reason, insufficient explanatory power. But no-one is obliged to prove anything wrong. It's always up to the claimant to demonstrate to their peers that their claim is justified. Until the claim is actively accepted by those peers, it remains in its default state: merely a claim.

A proposition that is put forward for criticism is usually called a hypothesis rather than a theory. Only when a hypothesis is widely accepted (by the claimants' peers) to have acquired strong confirmation, does it become a theory; for example, the germ theory of disease, or the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the case of claimed anomalies in the Zapruder film, the relevant peers would be experts in film technology, not hopeful non-experts on web forums. Sorry about that.

None of the specific claims of alteration to the Zapruder film (or the forgery of the moon-landings photos) have got beyond the hypothesis stage, and many have been demonstrated to be false, often because they are based on imperfections which are present in a poor-quality copy but not present in better-quality copies.

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

Early in this discussion, when you were claiming the Z film *couldn't* have been altered, you said one reason was because the extant film still contained evidence that contradicted the Oswald story. ... Now you're back contradicting your own point. ... you say there is no reason to suspect "anyone in authority"  (read Johnson and the CIA ...) had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story.

Roger's argument seems to be that "Johnson and the CIA" had decided, either (a) immediately after the assassination or (b) even before the assassination, to impose the 'Oswald did it' interpretation, and that the only reason "Johnson and the CIA" wanted briefing boards prepared was to see whether the Zapruder film contradicted the interpretation they had already decided to impose.

If I've got that wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected. If I've got that right, Roger needs to produce some documentary evidence that "Johnson and the CIA" did in fact decide on that interpretation as early as Roger seems to be claiming.

If Roger believes that the 'Oswald did it' interpretation was an integral part of the plot, he needs to demonstrate why "Johnson and the CIA" decided to have JFK assassinated in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of spectators, any number of whom would have been carrying cameras and could be expected to capture images containing evidence of more than one gunman.

Personally, if I were planning a public assassination using more than one gunman, in which evidence of more than one gunman was likely to be recorded on film, it would be because I wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy rather than the act of one gunman.

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

We know that there are alterations in the Z film ... We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

I've pointed out before that Sandy's idea of what constitutes proof is not what most people would think of as proof. I won't embarrass Sandy by giving a link to his claimed "proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered", which was debunked just a few minutes after he posted it. Oh, well, if you insist: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/

Greg Doudna writes:

Quote

I think most in the non-alteration camp would be open to proof of alteration of Zapruder if proof were shown in a form, not sufficient to convince a lay or amateur reader (like most of us reading this), but sufficient to persuade experts in the relevant fields who will state for the record that they are convinced. 

I'd be happy to accept that the film was altered if the case for alteration were submitted to an appropriate scholarly journal, subjected to peer review, and approved by independent experts with appropriate qualifications. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened. In fact, as far as I'm aware, no-one who claims alteration has even bothered to submit an article to a reputable journal.

Quote

I would like to end with a personal specific question on one alteration allegation claim. It is the claim that the existing Zapruder film shows the driver, Greer, turning his head back and forward too rapidly beyond human ability to move that fast.

Of course, it's up to the person making the claim to provide sufficient evidence to support that claim. Until they do so, we shouldn't believe the claim. That appears to be the situation we're in with the 'Greer turned his head too fast' claim. Nevertheless, I've found this apparent rebuttal online, in which someone claims to have done what Greer appears to have done:

https://jfkassassination.quora.com/Some-have-argued-that-Agent-Greer-s-head-swiveled-impossibly-fast-in-F315-317-Some-say-that-his-head-turned-from-150-l

This page contains links to a number of articles which refute various alteration claims:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

In case Roger genuinely can't see why his evidence-free speculation is worthless, let me offer an analogy.

1. People have spent the best part of half a century pointing out anomalies in the moon-landings photographs.
2. Even though nothing approaching proof of forgery has been found, people wouldn't have spent that long searching for anomalies unless the photos had been faked in some way.
3. Clearly the moon landings didn't happen, and the photos are fakes.
4. The only official body that could have forged the moon-landings photographs is NASA.
5. We know when and where NASA forged the photographs, because some guy was interviewed by a moon-landings denier decades later, and the guy recalled that he had heard from someone else that the photos were forged at NASA's top-secret photo-forging plant. And this guy is thoroughly believable because he admitted that he was a recovering alcoholic and drug-addict and that his memory was unreliable.
6. Officials at NASA had every reason to cover up their forgery of those photographs at the top-secret plant disclosed by the guy with the memory problems.
7. The fact that no evidence exists of NASA's involvement in the forgery, proves that NASA did in fact destroy that evidence.
8. It's silly to insist on seeing evidence that NASA officials discussed forging the moon-landings photographs! They would have destroyed any such evidence!
9. Therefore, speculation will do, and I can make up any story I like!

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

It is *not* speculation that,

Followed by lots and lots of speculation.

Quote

So the question that Saturday was straightforward.  Who should have priority access to the use of the original film--Life or the govt officials? (incredibly you claim there is no evidence this was an issue or that it was discussed by anyone.  One of the silliest uses of your "no evidence" mantras).

The reason I claimed that there is no evidence that any such discussion took place is that Roger has provided no actual, verifiable, documentary evidence that any such discussion took place.

If Roger doesn't want to do any research, to try to dig out any relevant evidence, maybe we should ask why Douglas Horne, originator of the speculative Hawkeye Works notion, appears to have done no such research himself.

Are there any official records, such as memos or phone call transcriptions, in which high-ranking officials discuss the Zapruder film at all on the Saturday? What about memoirs written by officials? Oral history interviews? Anything?

If any such records exist, do they give us any reason to suspect that anyone in authority, prior to the NPIC event on the Saturday, considered that the Zapruder film might be a serious obstacle to the 'Oswald did it' explanation?

In the absence of any such evidence, there is no reason to suppose that the examination of a version of the Zapruder film on the Saturday was motivated by any need to impose the 'Oswald did it' explanation.

And if there was nothing sinister about the NPIC event on the Saturday, there is no reason to take seriously the notion that anything at all happened at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday.

Until Roger, or Horne, or anyone else, presents some verifiable documentary evidence that the examination of the Zapruder film on the Saturday was part of a plan to impose the 'Oswald did it' explanation, we are left with a perfectly plausible scenario: the film taken to NPIC on the Saturday was the Secret Service's first-day copy which had arrived in Washington that morning.

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

You're looking for documents from the CIA that would verify the existence of HW in 1963, and that show that the Zapruder film was taken there Sunday morning for something??!!

I'm looking for any positive, non-hearsay evidence to support Roger's claim that the original Zapruder film was taken to Hawkeye Works on the weekend of the assassination. Since Roger is claiming that this event happened, the burden of proof is on him to support his claim with objectively verifiable evidence (not speculation).

I'm pointing out that the evidence Roger has provided is nowhere near sufficient to allow us to believe that this event happened. Roger's evidence consists solely of a recollection, from several decades later, by one person who had no direct experience of such an event and who admitted that his memory wasn't reliable. I'm sure Roger can see why this 'evidence' is worthless.

Roger keeps stating that the CIA wouldn't allow any documentation to survive. Well, that's Roger's problem, not mine. He's the one who needs to find evidence to support his claim. If he can't get it from one source, he needs to do some research and get it from another source. If, as appears to be the case, there simply is no good evidence to support his claim, he should admit that his claim is worthless and is based on nothing more than speculation.

Quote

It's time you addressed why you think Life would have prevailed in that Saturday discussion about who should get to use the original film.

What Saturday discussion? Again with the speculating! If Roger is claiming that some sort of discussion took place somewhere, he needs to provide positive evidence to show that this hypothetical discussion did actually take place. Without such evidence, Roger is just making stuff up.

Quote

Initially Jeremy disagreed.  He thought Stolley had sent the third copy to Chicago with the original.  He has since realized his mistake.

I cited evidence (not speculation) to support my claim: Stolley's own account in Esquire magazine, in which he stated that he took the third copy with him. Later, Chris provided other accounts which implied that Stolley's Esquire account was mistaken. So I changed my mind in response to a change in the evidence, which is what every reasonable person should do.

As I pointed out at the time, the location of Zapruder's first-day copy can help us to work out which version of the film turned up at NPIC in Washington on the Saturday. If Zapruder's copy had been sent to Life in Chicago, it's conceivable that the original could have ended up 600 miles away at the NPIC in Washington, as Roger speculates.

But since we have evidence (not speculation) that Zapruder's copy remained in Dallas over the weekend, we can conclude that the film Life used in Chicago over the weekend must have been the original Zapruder film. That's because we have evidence (not speculation) about the location of the other two first-day copies at the time of the NPIC event. Both of them were in Washington, where the NPIC was located. The Secret Service copy arrived early on the Saturday morning, and the FBI copy at some point that evening.

Based on all the verifiable evidence we have, the only plausible candidate for the film at NPIC is the Secret Service copy which had arrived in Washington early on the Saturday.

Now, does Roger have anything to offer other than speculation? If not, that's the end of the matter, isn't it?

Chris Scally writes:

Quote

I ... have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own.

As if to illustrate Chris's point, Roger responds with yet more unfounded, evidence-free, research-free speculation, e.g.: "Before the boards themselves were even finished, why was the film sent to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works and what was done there?" Pure speculation. As we have seen, there is no good evidence that any version of the Zapruder film was sent to Hawkeye Works. It's like asking: why did Stanley Kubrick choose the desert in Arizona as his location for filming the moon landings? Come on! Answer the question! Why Arizona?

I'd like to thank Chris for doing the research which Roger and others really should have done before launching into an unsupported speculation-fest. Personally, I was interested to learn that Stolley's claim in his Esquire article, that he took the remaining first-day copy with him, was incorrect. I'll update my interpretation to take account of this fact. I hope Roger and others will update their interpretations also, to take account of the facts Chris has presented.

Michael Griffiths writes:

Quote

Making the specious argument that there's no good evidence the diversion occurred is a form of brushing it aside.

I suppose you could call pointing out the lack of evidence "brushing it aside" if you like. But this isn't a specious argument; it's an accurate observation. As we have seen over the last few pages, there really is no good evidence!

If there's a specious argument here, it's that contradictory recollections from 30 or more years later are necessarily accurate, and that a complex scenario based on speculation is more plausible than a simple scenario based on actual evidence.

Quote

To believe the diversion did not occur, you'd have to believe that the three NPIC people who disclosed it just imagined, or simply fabricated, that they saw and analyzed the Zapruder film within 48 hours of the shooting.

As I've pointed out more than once already, there's no need to believe that these 30-plus-years-later recollections were deliberately fabricated. You just need to consider the uncontroversial fact that people's detailed recollections of events from decades earlier very often contain inaccuracies.

To evaluate the credibility of those recollections, some of which are mutually contradictory and which must therefore contain inaccuracies, please take the time to read Tom Gram's comments.