Jeremy Bojczuk

Denise Hazelwood writes: Horne's speculations about the Zapruder film cannot be correct, for the technical reasons I gave in my previous post. Denise has not yet addressed this problem. We can be sure that the 'back and to the left' movement happened, because this part of the Zapruder film is consistent with what we see in the Nix and Muchmore films, as well as the Moorman photo. And perhaps the Bronson film, too, depending on exactly what alterations she is proposing. Once Denise gets around to explaining how the Zapruder film was faked, she will also need to explain how the Nix film was faked, how the Muchmore film was faked, how the Moorman photo was faked, and perhaps how the Bronson film was faked. Proper, detailed explanations, please, not vague hand-waving and appeals to magic. [Slaps forehead] If you suspend your critical faculties enough, you'll believe any far-fetched claim.

John Butler writes: Well, you could start by clicking on the link I've provided a couple of times already, most recently in the comment immediately above yours. Here it is again: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf That PDF document is an open letter in response to Doug Horne by Roland Zavada, who played a large part in inventing Kodachrome film and the K12 process. It quotes the conclusion of Prof. Raymond Fielding, another expert in film technology, that the film in the Archives is the original and not a copy. Zavada wrote a technical report about the Zapruder film in which he explains why the film is not a copy. You can find a link to it, as well as related articles, all of which are worth reading, here: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm Both Zavada and Fielding inspected the actual film that's in the Archives. Both of them know what they are talking about. Both of them concluded that the film is not a copy. Until another expert comes up with a different conclusion, there's no good reason for any non-expert to doubt that the film in the Archives is the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Now, given that the film is not a copy, how were Denise's and John's alterations performed?

Denise, Yes, I'm familiar with Doug Horne's ideas. He weaves an elaborate tapestry of fraud out of nothing more substantial than a couple of decades-old recollections. Horne is also the guy who wasted the ARRB's time by promoting Lifton's body-alteration nonsense. Why should anyone take his opinions seriously? One of the documents I linked to a few posts ago points out several fatal problems with Horne's scenario, and notes his "inability to comprehend fundamental film technology and basic laboratory practices". You should read it: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf (7.8 MB) Horne proposed that: alterations were made to the original Zapruder film; the altered film was copied onto a new reel of Kodachrome film; the film in the National Archives is that copy. But we know that this scenario cannot be true. The film in the Archives is not a copy; it is the original film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. As far as I'm aware, Horne hasn't overcome this obstacle. If he has, could you point me to his revised account? If he hasn't, perhaps you could answer the question I asked earlier: Given that the film in the National Archives is not a copy but the original film that was in Zapruder's camera, how were your proposed alterations actually done without a Kodachrome copy being made?

Sean Coleman writes: Oswald standing on the steps (or sitting in the domino room, eating his lunch) is only a problem if you assume that the lone-nut scenario was part of the original plan. But there's no good reason to assume this. As long as a gun could be tied to both the shooting and to Oswald, and Oswald in turn could be tied to the Cuban and Soviet regimes, it wouldn't matter where Oswald was during the shooting; the Cubans or Soviets would get the blame. The lone-nut story was constructed after the event, for purely political purposes. Greg Parker has written an informative reply to Sean here, discussing the creation of the Oswald legend: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p675-prayer-man#37859 Not everything to do with the assassination needs to be incorporated into some grand unified theory!

Denise Hazelwood writes: John Butler agrees: There must be many thousands of people with a detailed knowledge of the assassination. Only a tiny proportion has expressed any doubt that the film in the National Archives is genuine and unaltered. Certainly, no-one has come close to demonstrating that it's a fake. As we've seen on this thread, the evidence for fakery boils down to: vague witness statements, everyday artefacts in several-generations-old copies of the film, and magic. The magical part is the explanation of how the fakery was achieved. The Bad Guys waved their magic wands, and - hey presto! - the film was altered! Denise and John, each of whom has stated that many of the other assassination films and photos were also faked, need to explain how all this fakery was actually achieved. They could start by dealing with the point I made earlier, that the film in the Archives is not a copy; it is the physical film that was in Zapruder's camera. How were the proposed alterations actually done without a final Kodachrome copy being made?

Denise Hazelwood writes: Then demonstrate it. You could start by explaining these two examples: The Altgens photos were processed and transmitted all over the world only half an hour after the assassination. The Moorman photograph was broadcast on TV less than three hours after the assassination, and copies were distributed to journalists that afternoon and printed in the following day's newspapers. We know that almost all of the photographers in Dealey Plaza were not accosted and their films were not seized. There's a list of some of them here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24498-david-lifton-spots-a-piece-of-scalp-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=442261 Several photos and films taken that day only came to light months, years, and even decades after the event. There may well be other photos, still undiscovered. How could the Bad Guys have prevented images coming to light in the future that would expose their fraudulent manipulation? They couldn't, could they? How was all the seizing and faking done, exactly? Did the Bad Guys wave a magic wand, or what? Very slim indeed! So there's a special, top-secret area in the archives marked 'JFK Assassination Photos and Films, Unaltered, Not for Public Consumption, Never to be Released', is there? Come on! You can't be serious! You really think that might be the reason for withholding the records? I realise that Denise and John are probably just having a laugh at our expense, but this sort of magic-based 'everything is a fake' nonsense is liable to give genuine critics of the lone-nut account a bad name.

John Butler asks: No, the question I asked was about the actual physical process that would have been used to make the sort of alterations Denise seems to be proposing. According to the experts I cited in my last comment, the Zapruder film that is in the National Archives is not a copy; it is the original Kodachrome film that was in Zapruder's camera. I was asking Denise to explain how her alleged alterations were performed, given that the film is not a copy. All the methods that other people have proposed, as far as I can tell, require that alterations were made to the original film and then a final copy was made onto a new reel of Kodachrome film, which then found its way into the National Archives. But, since this cannot have happened, how were the alterations made, in Denise's opinion? John should feel free to offer a detailed technical explanation too, if he can think of one. If no plausible method exists by which such alterations could be made, there's no reason to suppose that the alterations happened. The odd-looking anomalies which Denise thinks are evidence of alteration must instead be one of two things: figments of her imagination, or common or garden artefacts that were generated when later copies were made. Given that this thread is supposed to be about the 'Secret Service agent shot JFK' theory, would Denise's version stand up even if all those films and photos weren't faked (which they weren't)? Or would her version of the fantasy-world 'everything is a fake' theory stand up even if the agent didn't in fact shoot JFK (which he didn't)?

Paul Brancato writes: Obtaining solid evidence that Oswald cannot have fired any shots would by itself be a huge step forward (assuming, of course, that examination of the original film actually does this). The lone-nut idea would be gone forever. The media would be forced to treat the subject properly and impartially, for once. Most importantly, there would be irresistible public pressure for a serious, genuine, no-holds-barred investigation. Who knows what that investigation might uncover? Another consequence would be that a number of far-fetched conspiracy theories would join the lone-nut theory in the dustbin of history, which may be why some conspiracy theorists don't seem too keen on the idea of getting the case solved. A proper examination of the Darnell and Wiegman films is currently the most promising avenue for a breakthrough. Everyone should support this effort.

That's good news! I was looking forward to watching the film in a cinema (as we call it over here), but I suppose whether that happens depends on virus-related events next year (damn you, Bill Gates and your tiny microchips!). I'll certainly be buying the DVD/Bluray if it becomes available.

Denise Hazelwood writes: Plenty of apparent anomalies have been explained over the years, by Thompson and others. We know for a fact that anomalies are generated by the copying of films. That's the default explanation for the sort of trivial anomalies Denise has cited. If Denise wants to explain those anomalies as examples of fakery, it's up to her to demonstrate that her particular form of fakery could and would have produced the anomalies she mentioned: What alteration process would have generated those specific anomalies? Denise continues: But the film does show this. After the 'back and to the left' movement, JFK does slump forward. James Altgens is another witness to the same thing; see pp.47-48 of Josiah Thompson's recent book, Last Second in Dallas. Incidentally, Thompson interprets this as evidence for a head shot from behind later than frame 313. Occam's razor is the opposite of what Denise claims. The principle is that we should accept the simplest explanation, not the most complex explanation, that fits the evidence. We know that eye-witnesses often make mistakes. We know that creating a copy of a physical image will generate visual artefacts in the copy, and consequently that the several-generations-old copies that Denise is working from must contain plenty of such artefacts. Those inevitable artefacts are the anomalies spotted by Denise and plenty of other over-imaginative people during the last couple of decades. That's the simple explanation. The complex explanation is that the Zapruder film, and all the other images which agree with particular aspects of the film, was altered. Unless someone demonstrates that such alterations have happened, there's no good reason to believe that they did happen. If Denise would like to have a go at proving that the Zapruder film (and any films and photographs that agree with it) was altered, please go ahead. I think 'Duh!' is the appropriate reply to that pearl of wisdom. But you need to say. We know from Roland Zavada's report and the comments of Prof. Raymond Fielding that the Kodachrome film in the National Archives is not a copy, because it does not contain any of the defects that would have been generated by the copying process: increased contrast, increased grain, and distorted colours. If that film is the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera, and not a copy, how were Denise's alterations made? What process was involved that could have altered the film without requiring a final copy to be made? Oh dear. Grab your tin-foil hats, people! Seriously, is there a single photo or home movie that wasn't faked? -- Further reading: Zavada's report: http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Prof. Fielding: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf (7.8 MB) (see p.18 for Fielding's comments, but the rest is worth reading too)

Denise Hazelwood writes: In other words, it's just the usual parade of visual anomalies that anyone can find in poor-quality copies of the film, or in the photos and films of the moon landings, for that matter. Does Denise's video provide an explanation of how these apparent anomalies might actually have been generated by a specific film-faking process? Or does she just list them, scratch her head, and declare the film to be altered? Does her video answer any of the obvious questions, such as: Is the film that's in the National Archives the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera, or is it a copy? If it's a copy, how is that consistent with its apparent lack of any of the defects that would inevitably have been generated by the copying process? If it's the actual film, how were the alterations made? Were the anomalies just painted in? If so, why would anyone have done that? Do the supposedly faked elements of the Zapruder film match the relevant parts of the other assassination films and photos? If they do, how can that be explained without the other images being faked too? If the other images were faked too, how exactly was it done in each case? For decades, people have been pointing to apparent anomalies in the Zapruder film and declaring it to be fake, only to discover that perfectly reasonable explanations exist for those anomalies, as Josiah Thompson explains: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html

Ron Bulman writes: You aren't the only one, Ron! No-one else seems to know what Chris has been going on about either. If anyone does understand it, perhaps they could help Chris out by providing us with a detailed explanation, using words rather than formulae and gifs (on the appropriate thread, not this one).

I made the point that John Butler's witnesses are consistent with what we see in the home movies and photographs. The shooting happened on Elm Street, not Houston Street or Main Street or the middle of the Gobi desert. John objected to this, but then for some reason cited aspects of their statements which actually support my case: the shots started "as the vehicle turned onto Elm St", "as the motorcade turned into the intersection", "after the President’s car turned down Elm St." Those witnesses certainly do not support Denise Hazelwood's claim that there was no head shot at frame 313. Why John even brought them up in this context is a mystery. As Karl Hilliard points out, the 'Hickey shot JFK' claim is nonsense. It's clear from the Bronson film that this did not happen. This long-debunked theory was re-heated and served up on television at the time of the fiftieth anniversary in order to support the notion that Oswald shot JFK from the sixth floor without accomplices. The only remotely plausible way this notion could be correct is if the head shot, which cannot have come from the sixth floor, instead came from an unwitting source. George Hickey's recent demise was seized on to allow him to perform that role. It's bizarre that someone should use this nonsensical lone-nut theory, which no serious student of the assassination supports, as part of a convoluted conspiracy theory. To answer Denny's original question: the best way to deal with people who were duped into believing the 'Hickey shot JFK' theory is to get them to look at the Bronson film, which actually shows Hickey not shooting JFK. You could also point out to them that it is blatant lone-nut propaganda and that no-one with any real knowledge of the assassination takes it seriously.

The list of witnesses John Butler gave us: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26714-anomalous-witness-statements-in-dealey-plaza/ doesn't provide any solid evidence to contradict the various home movies which show a head shot at frame 313 of the Zapruder film. The first named witness, Alan Smith, was almost certainly mistaken when he claimed to have been standing on Main Street. This article makes a good case that Smith, who was 14 at the time of the assassination, was in fact one of two boys standing on Elm Street, near the so-called Umbrella Man: Chris Scally, ‘Alan Smith and Friends’, Dealey Plaza Echo, vol.17 no.3 (Winter 2012), pp.38–46: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146599#relPageId=39 All of John's other witness statements are either vague or are perfectly consistent with what the photographic record shows: the shooting happened while the car was on Elm Street. None of those witnesses support Denise Hazelwood's claim that "there was no head shot at 313". That's hardly surprising, since for Denise's claim to be true several home movies would have had to be altered, a laborious and time-consuming procedure which would need to be proved in order to be believed. Before Denise gets around to proving that the home movies were altered, perhaps she could let us know of any witnesses who specifically contradict what we see in the home movies, so that we can evaluate their statements.

Chris Davidson writes: No, if someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to justify their claim. It isn't up to anyone else to refute the claim. As I mentioned in the comment immediately above the one Chris linked to, we've had two decades' worth of anomalies being identified that have turned out to be worthless. The burden of proof has never been met, and after 20 years of detailed scrutiny and failed attempts, it isn't likely to be, either. I pointed out elsewhere that Chris's fondness for numbers has led him to see significance in coincidences: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2465p25-from-the-files-of-the-ayn-rand-detective-agency-salt-lake-city-buda-bangkok-the-case-of-the-patsy-who-was-one-sandwich-short-of-a-picnic#37765 John Butler writes: So more than 100 witnesses testified to the head shot taking place somewhere other than where the limo was at frame 313? Perhaps John could open a new thread and give us chapter and verse on all these witnesses, with details of exactly where they said the head shot actually took place. Let's see what the evidence is, and whether the witnesses really said what John thinks they said. If, as I suspect, there are only a handful of anomalous witnesses rather than over a hundred, why should we believe them over several home movies and photographs?

Denise Hazelwood wrote: Jonathan Cohen asked: Denise replied: Denise hasn't answered the second part of Jonathan's question. What specific alterations to the film is she proposing? If frame 313 of the Zapruder film, which clearly indicates a shot to the head, is a fake, how was that bit of fakery done? Was the image of JFK's head wound painted in? Was it a cut-and-paste job, using a frame taken from some other part of the car's journey along Elm Street? Or was it created entirely from scratch? What about frames 314 onward, which show debris flying through the air and JFK famously falling back and to the left? Were those frames faked too? If so, how was it done? Painted-in, cut-and-paste, or created from scratch? As for the missing car stop, how was that bit of fakery done? Were a number of frames snipped out and the two ends joined together? If so, how is that consistent with the film's depiction of the car moving smoothly down Elm Street? If, on the other hand, frames were not snipped out, exactly how was the car stop removed? Did the head-shot and car-stop fakery involve the copying of a revised set of frames onto a new reel of Kodachrome film? If so, how would Denise account for the condition of the Zapruder film that is in the National Archives? The film apparently contains none of the defects that would inevitably be generated by copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film, as Roland Zavada explained in his report for the ARRB. You'll find a link to Zavada's report and other useful sources here: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm If the fakery did not involve copying a revised set of frames onto a new reel of Kodachrome film, and the film in the National Archives is indeed the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, how would Denise reconcile the condition of the film with the alterations she claims were made to it? If the head shot at frame 313 is a fake and a car stop has been removed from the Zapruder film, how would Denise account for the other home movies and photographs which are consistent with what we see in the relevant section of the Zapruder film? Presumably, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, the Moorman photograph, and the Altgens 7 photograph were also faked in some way. How was it done, in each case? I'd be especially interested to learn how the Moorman photo was faked in the short period of time before numerous copies were distributed to journalists on the afternoon of the assassination. If the head shot did not take place when the various home movies and still photographs indicate that it took place, could Denise tell us exactly when it did take place? These and several other home movies and photos show the car at various points on its journey along Elm Street. Are there any images of the car at the instant when Denise thinks the head shot actually occurred? If, as is likely, such images exist, why do they not show it? Were they faked too? If so, in each case, how was it done? Denise also writes: That's a big 'if'! It should read: Why should we believe those witnesses? We should expect people to make the occasional mistake when they recall the fine details of a brief, unexpected and traumatic event. In the case of the supposed car stop, we have on the one hand a small number of witnesses who claimed consistently that the car pulled over to the left and stopped momentarily (see http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street ). We have on the other hand a much larger number of witnesses who would have seen the car stop if it had happened, and would surely have reported it but did not do so. And of course we also have four home movies and two still photographs that agree, unambiguously, that the car did not pull over to the left and stop at the time of the head shot. Until Denise or anyone else can demonstrate that these home movies and photographs were faked, there is no good reason to prefer the accounts of a small number of fallible human witnesses. Incidentally, the case for the supposed car stop was dismantled on this forum a few months ago: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27114-what-prevented-dulles-angleton-from-destroying-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=441219 Oh dear. The "other" Zapruder film! It's the JFK assassination's equivalent of alien abduction stories. Is Denise seriously claiming that a handful of people, in different parts of the world, were neither lying nor honestly mistaken when they claimed that such a valuable, top-secret film was for some reason made available for them to watch?

David Andrews writes: Is that the Wilkerson thing? I've been reading for years that a super-detailed scan was being examined by special-effects experts, and that it would provide definitive proof of fakery that would blow the case out of the water. As with some end-of-the-world prophecy that limps past its deadline, we're still waiting for the apocalypse to arrive. Does anyone know what happened to that particular effort to prove that the film was faked? If those experts had actually found anything, I'm sure we would have heard about it by now. The Zapruder-film-is-a-fake speculation has been going on for - what? - twenty years, maybe longer, and there's still no proof.* All we have is a collection of apparent anomalies, almost all of which have turned out to have plausible, innocent explanations. Mary Moorman was standing in the street! Oh wait, she wasn't. The lamp posts look kinda strange! Oh wait, they don't. And so on. The problem is that this anomaly-hunting can go on forever. There are plenty of copies of copies of copies of copies of the Zapruder film floating about, with each copy adding a new collection of strange-looking artefacts. And of course there's no shortage of people who can pounce on these artefacts. These people may not know much about photography, but they do like the idea of a vastly complicated conspiracy. I've found a blob in a 17th-generation copy of the Zapruder film! I can't think of how that blob might have got there! That means it's a forgery! The crazy thing is that the Zapruder film is perhaps the strongest piece of documentary evidence to contradict the lone-gunman explanation. But who cares about that if you've got the chance to indulge your taste for ridiculously elaborate conspiracies? * Not only is there no proof, but there isn't even any agreement on what is wrong with the film, or why this or that part might have needed to be altered. A frame or two in this section were tweaked! No, a few frames in that section were removed! No, the whole thing was reconstructed from scratch! That disagreement by itself is a pretty good clue that it's all just the product of over-active imaginations.

David Josephs writes: It isn't up to Jonathan or anyone else to disprove someone's speculative assertion. That isn't how things work. It's up to the person who made the speculative assertion to prove their case. If they can't, it remains exactly that: empty speculation. There's nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, of course. Although I've only popped in here occasionally over the last few weeks, I've seen little other than wild speculation, in all sorts of areas. I think this forum needs to be renamed. Rather than the Education Forum, it now seems to be the Speculation Forum. I particularly enjoyed the pages and pages of speculation about the Tippit killing, and the attempts to incorporate that killing into a Grand Unified Theory of the JFK assassination. I mean, Oswald was charged with killing Tippit, so it must have been part of the plot from the beginning, mustn't it? Why stop there? It doesn't take many people to shoot some guy in a slow-moving open-topped car, but that's no fun. The more complicated and unlikely the theory we can construct, the more fun we can have! It should be possible to work plenty of the minor characters into our Grand Unified Theory. Let's start with the Babushka Lady. She must have been involved somehow, mustn't she? Maybe she helped Richard Nagell, Michael Paine, and one of the four Marguerite Oswalds to operate the mobile photo lab in Dealey Plaza that faked the Altgens photos! Go on, prove that she didn't!

John Butler writes: As usual, it's difficult to tell whether John Butler is being serious or is just having a laugh at our expense. There could be as many as three Zapruder films, apparently. And the deception and forgery don't stop there. According to Mr Butler, almost all of the home movies and photographs from Dealey Plaza have been faked in some way. That includes the Altgens photographs, several of which were somehow altered during the half an hour or so before they were transmitted all over the world. Then we have the three or four Oswalds that Mr Butler has proposed. And presumably each of these three or four Oswalds would have had his own Marguerite. I dread to think what he will conjure into existence when he finds out about Lifton's body-alteration and papier-mâché trees nonsense, or Mr Caddy's little green men. If Mr Butler is having a laugh with all of this far-fetched stuff, a question arises. Who is he making fun of? Is he satirising the everything-is-a-fake, Jack White school of JFK assassination enthusiasts, by taking their fanciful speculations to extremes? If so, he's doing a splendid job. Keep up the good work, Mr Butler! Of course, if he's being serious, he really needs to stop speculating for a moment and work out how all of this widespread fakery might actually have happened. If almost all the photos and films were faked, how exactly could it have been done?

Good points, Gil. There are some similarities between your account of the Tippit incident and Greg Parker's: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2451-the-bad-boys-of-oak-cliff-part-i I've always been puzzled by the need to incorporate the Tippit murder (or, for example, the Richard Nagell and Rose Cherami stories) into some grand unified theory of the JFK assassination. What people should be doing is eliminating as much of the poorly supported or outlying stuff as possible, rather than trying to incorporate as much of it as possible. I'm sure we all recognise the flimsiness of the witness and ballistics evidence against Oswald as the killer of Tippit. We know that the killing was pinned on Oswald after the event. But all of that doesn't mean that the Tippit killing had to be part of a finely worked-out pre-assassination plot to incriminate Oswald. A Hollywood scriptwriter might want to take the Tippit murder and make it part of the main JFK assassination narrative by, say, having Tippit chase Oswald around Dallas after having shot Kennedy from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It would make for a nicely tied-together movie plot, but it wouldn't make for a credible interpretation of the assassination. On a side note, it's good to find a thread on this forum that's actually about the JFK assassination, rather than 9/11, vaccinations, Trump, or those little green men that live among us.

Dennis Berube writes: That's a good example of why know-nothing anti-vaxxer propagandists on social media aren't the most reliable source of information, even if they do tell Dennis what he wants to hear. The supposed problem is debunked here: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-posts-misinterpret-cdcs-provincetown-covid-19-outbreak-report/ The phenomenon is explained by two statisticians here: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated I gave that link a week ago in reply to Chris Barnard's comment that The principle is simple, so even ill-informed anti-vaxxers should be able to grasp it. As the proportion of a population that is vaccinated against covid increases, those who are vaccinated will form an increasing proportion of the covid-related deaths that occur. The second article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "too many". But even if what Dennis was told to believe by some ignoramus on Facebook or Fox News is correct, so what? Healthy people get vaccinated not only to protect themselves, but also to protect other people, especially those who aren't as healthy as they are. At least, that's what rational healthy people do. I'd guess this is the 'freedom' thing Dennis is concerned about. Perhaps he has a point. I mean, why should I care about anyone else? Why should the Evil Gubmint (boo! hiss!) restrict my freedom to get drunk and drive my car at 150 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road if I want to? (Not that my old car could reach anywhere near 150mph, but you get my point.) It's tyranny, I tell you!

Denny Zartman writes: Chris Barnard replies: Disregarding those experts who go against one's preconceived views is exactly what Chris has been doing. Which experts should Chris believe? If expert opinion is evenly divided, Chris might be justified in tossing a coin and going with whichever opinion happens to reflect his view of the world. But if, as in this case, expert opinion is overwhelmingly on one side, it is perverse and irrational for a non-expert to prefer the minority opinion. The principle involved is very straightforward, but Chris doesn't seem to grasp it. Paul Brancato writes: RFK Jr's environmental activism is indeed praiseworthy, but that doesn't make him an expert on mercury or anything else to do with vaccination. The majority of expert opinion strongly disagrees with RFK Jr about the safety of vaccination. Why should any non-expert side with him rather than the large majority of experts?

Excellent post, Kirk. Anti-vaxxers are not just misguided, they're selfish and potentially dangerous to others. Speaking of misguided, Chris Barnard writes: No, because these people do not possess specialist knowledge that the rest of us do not possess. Isn't that obvious? You don't need specialist scientific or technical knowledge to come to an informed opinion about any of the central areas of the JFK assassination debate. But you do, in the case of whether or not planes are capable of causing buildings to collapse, or whether or not vaccines are safe. What's stopping Chris grasping this obvious point? Dennis Berube hasn't thought it through either: But Dennis has worked out why only a tiny proportion of medical professionals are worth listening to: It's all a big plot. There is no scientific consensus after all. It's just something constructed by the media in order to enslave us poor souls and harvest our precious bodily fluids, all for the benefit of our overlords. I knew Bill Gates and the lizard people were involved! I was right all along! Seriously, does Dennis really believe that the overwhelming scientific consensus about vaccination doesn't actually exist? That it's all just corporate propaganda? It's not entirely clear whether Dennis means that the scientific consensus is an invention of corporate propaganda, or that the scientists and medical experts themselves have been brainwashed by corporate propaganda to mistakenly conclude that vaccines are safe. Either way, he surely doesn't believe any of that, does he? Dennis continues: For two reasons: To point out your error. Expert opinion is what decides whether or not vaccines should be considered safe. Expert opinion overwhelmingly does consider vaccines to be safe. Our two resident anti-vaxxers are making an obvious logical error in preferring the views of a small minority of experts over the views of a large majority of experts. Because this forum is about the JFK assassination, a serious subject that is harmed by being associated with anti-vaxxer propaganda. I don't know how many casual visitors this site gets, so the anti-vaxxer propaganda may not be a huge problem. But it does provide ammunition for those who want to portray critics of the lone-nut theory, and JFK assassination researchers in general, as a bunch of crackpots. Chris writes: Yes, it's called research. Plenty of it has been done, and the scientific consensus is that vaccines in general are very safe.

That long, uncritical interview is uncredited, but appears to be from an anti-vaxxer website. I'm not sure Chris is justified in using this forum, which is supposed to be about the JFK assassination, to spread anti-vaxxer propaganda. If he is going to cover the vaccination debate, the least he could do is cover both sides of it, especially as the vast majority of medical opinion is opposed to the view he is putting forward. In the interests of balance, here are some links to the majority expert opinion. Chris might benefit from finding out what the experts have to say. General criticism of anti-vaxxer talking points: https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/ https://www.businessinsider.com/lies-anti-vaxxers-spread-about-measles-vaccine-debunked-2019-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/four-vaccine-myths-and-where-they-came https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597904/ https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-13-covid-19-vaccine-myths Criticism of RFK Jr's fact-twisting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/ (includes several blatant examples of RFK Jr's distortion of comments by scientists) https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr Historical and political context of anti-vaxxer activity: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/vaccine-hesitancy-history-damage-anti-vaccination https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-anti-vax-covid-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-1125197/ The Rolling Stone article is a good account of how anti-vaxxer beliefs are linked to other current forms of irrationality in the US, and contains a sentence that might be aimed at Chris himself: Why does Chris promote those anti-vaxxer beliefs on a JFK assassination website? Why does he promote them at all, given that they represent the views of a very small proportion of medical experts? The principle here is obvious: if you aren't an expert, you do not have the ability to properly evaluate subjects that require expert knowledge. The only rational course of action for a non-expert like Chris (or me) is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. Surely Chris accepts that a large majority of experts dismiss the claims of anti-vaxxers as unjustified. Chris, like me, doesn't have the expert knowledge required to evaluate the science properly for himself. So why does he not accept the conclusions of the large majority of experts?

Paul Bacon writes: Nice idea, Paul! But I don't think I could ever become an expert, what with having zero interest in structural engineering and similar subjects. And even if that changed I don't think I'd have sufficient time and funds to acquire a relevant degree or other professional qualification. I suspect it may take a little longer than that! What may seem obvious to a layman who has spent one day reading up on the subject might not seem obvious to a professional with years of experience. In this case, it clearly doesn't seem obvious to the majority of those professionals. W. Niederhut writes: The media certainly distorts topics that affect institutional power, though it's debatable how much of that is due directly to arm-twisting by the CIA or similar organisations. I think it's unlikely that distortions by the media have much to do with the lack of expert support for the idea that the towers were brought down by explosives. Plenty of 9/11 criticism does get through to the public, and hence to professional structural engineers and the like. These experts will be aware that criticism exists, and that it relates to an area of their professional expertise. They will know where to find this criticism if their expertise leads them to suspect that the official explanation is inadequate. Yet only a small proportion of them do seem to think that the official explanation is inadequate. From the general public's point of view, the attacks offer a plausible example of cause and effect: planes crash into buildings; buildings collapse. That makes sense to non-expert members of the public. As one of those non-experts, I'm aware of that example of cause and effect and of the fact that few experts seem to disagree with it. Like most members of the public, I'm also aware that regimes are capable of doing bad things, and that an inside job of some sort isn't impossible. And as a JFK assassination enthusiast, I'm aware that an event like the 9/11 attacks is likely to generate plenty of anomalous items of evidence, which may seem sinister but which may have everyday explanations of which I'm currently unaware. The question of whether or not the planes crashing into the buildings was sufficient to cause the buildings to collapse is not something I, as a non-expert member of the public, am able to decide for myself. Unless I become an expert, the only rational thing for me to do is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. It seems irrational to do otherwise. On that subject, Chris's research methods have generated some attention elsewhere: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419p25-the-mullberry-bush#37117