Jeremy Bojczuk

Andrej Stancak writes: Yes, it was Jackie who did that. This is what she told the Warren Commission: That passage was omitted from her testimony as published in the WC Hearings and Exhibits, vol.5, p.180 ("Reference to wounds deleted"), but it was revealed when the official transcript was made public as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by Harold Weisberg. See Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, vol.7 issue 2 (Summer 2001), p.18: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4271#relPageId=20

Steven Kossor writes: "Modern analyses and technologies" have indeed been used to study the Zapruder film, and they show that it is authentic. Have a look at the Zavada report. Roland Zavada was one of the scientists who created Kodachrome film. He knew what he was talking about. He examined the film in detail on behalf of the Assassination Records and Review Board, and gave solid technical reasons which refute any claims of fakery. You can find his report here: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm Please read it, and the other articles linked to on that page. Please also read this article by Zavada: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Zavada pointed out that if you take a Kodachrome film, such as the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, and copy it onto a second Kodachrome film, obvious defects will inevitably be generated. Contrast will increase, grain will increase, and colours will be distorted. Zavada, along with Professor Raymond Fielding, examined the Zapruder film that's in the National Archives. They found that the film contained none of the defects that must have been generated if the film had been copied. They concluded that the film in the Archives is the one that was in Zapruder's camera. If any frames were removed, or if any images were inserted or removed, the final stage of the process must have involved copying the altered film onto a second Kodachrome film. Expert analysis tells us that this cannot have happened. Unless you can find another expert who has examined the film in detail and offers a different conclusion, or unless you can demonstrate that Zavada and Fielding were bribed or blackmailed, that's the end of the matter. The Zapruder film is authentic.

Steven Kossor writes: That's just a product of how the forum software renders quotations when someone quotes a quote, as Chris did. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that I quoted you correctly. Chris Barnard writes: Steven agrees: Chris and Steven seem to be saying that we should doubt the authenticity of the Zapruder film because it is used by propagandists who ignore the fact that it contradicts the lone-nut theory. Of course, superficial viewers may not be aware that the film does not do what the propagandists say it does. But so what? It still contains evidence that contradicts the lone-nut theory. That alone shows that it wasn't faked to support the lone-nut theory.

David Lifton writes: Condensed version: Robert Groden is a bad and socially inferior person, and David Lifton, despite being a socially superior person, is unable to explain how four home movies and two photographs were altered to conceal an event that didn't happen.

Steven Kossor writes: This can't be true, because the Zapruder film, far from confirming the lone-nut theory, actively contradicts it!

John Butler writes: Plenty of people would know the difference. As I pointed out to Jamey on the previous page, copies of Mary Moorman's Polaroid photograph were distributed to journalists within a few hours of the assassination. Any one of these copies would provide incontrovertible proof that Moorman's original photo had been altered later. As it happens, we know that the copies agree with the original photo, because those copies were widely reproduced in newspapers only the day after the assassination. As Richard Trask writes: The element in question is Moorman's depiction of one of the police motorcyclists, and part of the second motorbike, riding to the left of the presidential limousine. That's what refutes the witnesses who claimed that the car swerved into the left-hand lane and stopped. If that element is a fake, it must have been done within just a few hours of the assassination. How was it done? Unless anyone can provide a plausible explanation of how that element could have been faked within such a short time, we must conclude that the witnesses, like all human beings, had fallible memories. By May 1964, or whatever date you think alterations were being made, many of the assassination films and photographs had been copied and distributed many times over. As with the six films and photographs which refute the car-stop fantasy, any substantial alterations would have been easy to spot.

Chris Davidson writes: But they do: each of them shows police motorcyclists to the left of the presidential limousine. Ergo, the car was in the middle lane the whole time. If the car was in the middle lane, it did not swerve into the left-hand lane and stop there. The witnesses were wrong. There are six photographs or home movies that show the police motorcyclists to the left of the limo, or the limo explicitly in the middle lane, or both. Either the witnesses were wrong, or all six photos and films must have been altered to show this. If they were altered, how was it done?

Tracy, If Jim has been ill, I'm genuinely pleased that he seems to have made a full recovery. I'm not so pleased that he is back to his old copying-and-pasting-Scripture tricks, but I suppose you can't have everything. Robert, Why he keeps spamming this forum by dumping the same passages of Scripture over and over again, while ignoring the arguments and evidence that contradict his holy text, is a mystery. He's obviously trying to recruit converts to his cult, but his methods clearly aren't working. Who has he managed to convert here in the last few years? There's John Butler, and ... hmm .. well, there's John Butler, who thinks there may have been up to four Oswalds and that two of them may have defected to the Soviet Union ("I keep an open mind on the question of who was first into Russia and when did Harvey get there"). A worthy convert indeed!

Gene Kelly writes: We know that this didn't happen. On the contrary, the police and the FBI made little effort to round up films and photographs. Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain (Yeoman Press, 1994), gives a good account of how the authorities dealt with the main photographers and home movie makers. The authorities overwhelmingly relied on photographers making the effort to contact them. As I pointed out a few posts ago, almost all of the photographers and home movie makers left Dealey Plaza with their cameras and films intact. Here's the list I gave: Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.157). Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police. Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either. Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized. Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination. Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964. Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras. Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera. Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination. Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination. Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized. James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed. There wasn't even an effort made to identify all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Once the witnesses had dispersed to who-knows-where, how could the authorities ever identify them all? More importantly, how could the authorities be sure that every film or photo could be accounted for? They couldn't. As we have seen, some films and photographs didn't come to the attention of the authorities until long after the assassination. I and others have asked the following question several times recently, and no-one has yet come up with an answer. How could any film-fakers be sure that their fakery wouldn't be exposed by a previously unknown film or photo coming to light in the future?

Jamey Flanagan writes: No. It's only the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films that show that the car didn't stop. If you go for the full-fat version of the car-stop fantasy, and claim that the car pulled over into the left-hand lane as it stopped, you need to account for the Moorman photo, the Altgens 7 photo, and the Bronson film, in addition to the three films already mentioned. To be consistent, you really would need to claim that the car pulled into the left-hand lane. After all, that's what some of the witnesses said. I suppose you could dismiss that aspect of their story, by pointing out that witnesses make mistakes sometimes, but that wouldn't look very good, would it? Now we have six photos or home movies that needed to be altered so that they matched each other: The Zapruder film. The Muchmore film. The Nix film. The Bronson film. The Moorman photo. The Altgens 7 photo. How was it done? How was each one faked? The more details you can provide in each case, the less far-fetched your claim will appear to be. Hint: writing 'The fakers clicked their fingers and - hey presto - all the films and photos were altered' isn't good enough. Let's take one example. As I pointed out earlier, the Moorman photo was seen by others within minutes of the assassination. It was broadcast on TV within three hours of the assassination. Copies were made and distributed to journalists shortly after that, by which time it would have been out of the reach of any nefarious photo-fakers. Any alterations must have been made within a few hours of the assassination. How was that done? Once you've provided a plausible, detailed account of how the Moorman photo might have been altered in the very limited time available, we can move onto each of the other five items. Good luck!

David Lifton writes: I'm not sure Mr Lifton's grasp of the youthful patois is quite up to date. According to https://www.dictionary.com/browse/out--to--lunch, the phrase dates from the middle of the twentieth century. You dig, daddy-o? There is plenty of question about it, because all you have is a handful of witnesses, supported by some dogmatic assertion. That's not cool, man. True dat. They do constitute that evidence. There is no other evidence. All you have is a handful of witnesses. Given what we know about the fallibility of human memory, why should we believe a small number of witnesses rather than the evidence of three home movies? Or indeed (see my next comment) the evidence of four home movies and two photographs? Unless you can make a plausible case that each of the films was altered, the only rational conclusion is that the witnesses were, like all humans, fallible. Prithee, sirrah (as all the young people are saying these days), explain to us how each of these films was altered so that they all matched up. Dogmatic assertions don't count. How was the alteration done? The more details you can provide, the less implausible your claim will be. You could start with the Muchmore film. It remained in her camera until the 25th, when she sold it, unseen, to UPI. The film was shown on TV the next day. Please explain to us, in detail if thou wouldst be so kind, how that film was faked in the time available. I'd be particularly interested to see how Mr Lifton deals with Roland Zavada's observation that the Zapruder film, having been shot on Kodachrome, cannot have been faked. You feel me?

Steven Kossor writes: The popular idea, that around 50 witnesses claimed the limo stopped, is incorrect. Many of these witnesses actually claimed that the car slowed down, just as we see in the three home movies. Others were referring to cars further back in the motorcade. Of the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza, only a handful consistently claimed that JFK's limo actually came to a stop. The witnesses' statements are examined here: http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street The film-altering option is far, far more improbable than a small number of witnesses being mistaken. People's recollections are notoriously unreliable. Two factors make the film-altering option very improbable indeed: The films came to the attention of the authorities and the public at different times. Abraham Zapruder's film was seen by Kodak employees, journalists and others within 24 hours of the assassination, by which time several copies had been made. Marie Muchmore's film remained in her camera, unprocessed and unseen, until three days after the assassination, and was shown on TV the next day. Orville Nix didn't hand his film over to the FBI until 1 December. Alterations to each film would have needed to match any alterations that had already been made to the other films. And two other factors make the notion flatly impossible: The alterations would need to be performed to such a high standard that they could not be discovered in the future. The altered films would need to match every film or photo that was yet to be made public. On the first item, Roland Zavada, who examined the Zapruder film on behalf of the Assassination Records Review Board, wrote a long report which concluded that the existing film is the one that was in Zapruder's camera. Zavada pointed out that it was impossible to copy Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film without leaving obvious traces, such as increased contrast, increased grain, and colour distortion. None of these defects exist in the Zapruder film. This is quite independent of whatever technology existed in 1963 to insert or remove particular parts of an image. After any such alterations had been made, even if an intermediate, non-Kodachrome film was used, it would have been necessary to copy the altered film onto a second Kodachrome film. The lack of relevant defects in the Zapruder film shows that this did not happen. The final factor raises a question that no-one has yet found an answer to: how could the Bad Guys be sure that their alterations would not be exposed by another film or photo coming to light in the future? They couldn't, could they? And that's what makes all the Zapruder-film-is-a-fake speculation so nonsensical. The Zapruder film's 'time clock', when combined with the time needed to operate the sixth-floor rifle, is one of the factors that invalidates the single-bullet theory. Anyone who claims that the Zapruder film is a fake, is undermining the case against the lone-nut theory. It really isn't necessary for everything about the JFK assassination to be a conspiracy! --- Further reading: The Zavada report: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm Another useful article by Zavada: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf [7.8 MB] A link to an article by a professional camera operator pointing out technical reasons why the Zapruder film cannot have been altered: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2220-was-the-zap-film-altered

He's back! I'm glad to see that Jim is alive and well. I had visions of a worried-looking, out-of-breath John Armstrong running down the street, with the Benny Hill music playing in the background, being chased by Jim Hargrove who is shaking his fist and shouting "Come back, Armstrong! I wasted twenty years of my life hawking your nonsense!" As for Bolton Ford, this isn't the first time Jim has copied and pasted that particular passage from Scripture. He did so four years ago, when it was replied to here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident If anyone on the planet still has even the slightest interest in Jim's long-debunked theory, they should check out these links: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory The fundamental problem with the long-term double-doppelganger scheme is that it could never have happened. Now that Jim has reappeared, perhaps he could answer the question I asked earlier:

Steven Kossor also writes: I'd like to see Steven explain in detail how any organisation, let alone the Jamieson company, could have tampered with as many films and photos as it took to produce the internally consistent photographic record that we have today. How would this even have been possible? The more details Steven can provide, the less implausible his claim will be. As with the imaginary 'pivot' of JFK's head, what we see throughout the Zapruder film is consistent with what we see in dozens of other films and photos. To achieve this consistency, the Bad Guys had to overcome two huge hurdles. Firstly, as we have seen, they didn't have physical access to all the films and photos. Secondly, all the films and photos that we know about became public at different times. Some of these other films and photos came to light soon after the assassination, and were widely distributed very early on. Copies of the Moorman photo, for example, were distributed within hours of the assassination, at which point they would have been out of the reach of any photo-tamperers and would have provided conclusive evidence of any tampering carried out after that time. Some of the films and photos only came to light weeks, months, and even years later. Some may still be sitting in a box in someone's attic, and may come to light in the future. Even today, we don't know how many films and photos actually exist. Here are a few questions for Steven to ponder: How many of these films and photos were tampered with to produce such a consistent result? How did the Bad Guys work out which ones needed to be tampered with, and which elements needed to be altered? How, in each case, was that tampering actually done? How could the tamperers be sure that their tampering would not be exposed by the discovery of an un-tampered film or photo in the future? The notion that many or all of the assassination films and photos were tampered with is preposterous. Fortunately, you don't need to claim that the Zapruder film has been tampered with, in order to question the lone-nut theory. Not everything is a conspiracy!

Steven Kossor goes on: There was only a half-hearted official request for people, if they would be so kind, and if it isn't too much trouble, to turn in their photos or films. A handful of photographers, such as Abraham Zapruder and Mary Moorman, came to the attention of the authorities immediately, but very little active effort was made to track down the rest of the photographers or to confiscate cameras or films. In fact, almost all of the photographers and home movie-makers, including Zapruder, left Dealey Plaza without having their cameras or films seized. Here's a partial list I compiled earlier: Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain. p.157). Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police. Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either. Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized. Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination. Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964. Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras. Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera. Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination. Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination. Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized. James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed. As you can see, several of these people didn't come to the attention of the authorities until months or even years later. The authorities clearly weren't too bothered about what the photographs and home movies might show, apart from the obvious 'back and to the left' head snap that was presumably the main reason for keeping the Zapruder film largely away from public view for over a decade. This implies that whoever was behind the assassination wasn't too bothered either. As long as the assassination happened and their gunmen got away undetected, why should they have cared about what the films and photos contained?

Steven Kossor continues: What we see in the various home movies and photographs is entirely consistent with a shot from the front causing brain matter to fly 'back and to the left', as the famous phrase has it (or, indeed, in any roughly horizontal direction; as Tony Krome points out, brain matter seems to have gone in all directions). That's because, as I recently explained on another thread, there is no good reason to assume that any horizontal exit debris would have been caught on the Zapruder film. That applies also to the other home movies which show the same scene. If the debris wasn't recorded, there would have been no need to remove it from the films.

Steven Kossor writes: It isn't only the Zapruder film that must have been altered. The Muchmore and Nix films record JFK at the same moment in time, and they too fail to show any pivoting of JFK's head. There's also the Moorman photo, which shows JFK's head in the same unpivoted position, a fraction of a second after the fatal shot. Either all four were altered, or there was no "pivoting of JFK's head". Until someone comes up with a plausible, detailed account of how those three home movies and one photograph were altered, the only reasonable conclusion is that JFK's head didn't "pivot". We saw something similar on another thread a couple of weeks ago. Paul Rigby claimed that the Zapruder film had been altered to eliminate the limo swerving into the left-hand lane and stopping. It was pointed out to Paul that the Muchmore, Nix and Bronson films, along with the Moorman and Altgens 7 photographs, corroborate what we see in the Zapruder film. It appears that Paul hadn't even bothered to check the rest of the photographic record. Understandably, we haven't heard much from Paul since then. The moral of the story: before you claim that a particular element of the Zapruder film isn't genuine, you should check to see whether other films or photos show the same thing!

David G. Healy writes: What credentials do you need, to point out flaws in people's thinking? I don't suppose many people have better credentials in analysing the technical aspects of Kodachrome film than Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding. Let's see what Prof Fielding has to say. He actually mentions David: In that document, which is well worth reading for anyone who thinks the Zapruder film is a fake, Zavada concludes: Also worth reading is this thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22946-the-zapruder-film-and-film-information-between-the-sprocket-holes/ David 'technically naïve' Healy continues: Yes, I think the evidence for that is pretty strong. Here we go again! Why does David equate skepticism about extreme conspiracy theories with acceptance of the lone-nut theory? It is perfectly possible to question both the lone-nut theory and all of the implausible conspiracy theories that are based on nothing more than anomaly-spotting and wishful thinking. Clearly David isn't able to explain how all the films and photos I mentioned were faked. That isn't surprising, because faking them would have been not only an enormously difficult undertaking but also an impossible one in the limited time available. Until someone comes up with a plausible, detailed account of how the necessary alterations could have been made, we can rule out the notion that JFK's car swerved into the left-hand lane and stopped at around the time of the fatal shot. Perhaps Paul Rigby can help David here, since he brought up this particular example of fakery in the first place. How were the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, the Moorman photo, and the Altgens 7 photo all altered to cover up the car's swerve to the left? It didn't happen, did it?

John Kowalski writes: If there's something obvious that I'm missing, I apologise. Perhaps you could try making your point in another way. You wrote earlier that I "say that the conspiracy must not be true." Which conspiracy do you mean? If you mean the 'Harvey and Lee' conspiracy, then of course it isn't true. That particular conspiracy has been shown to be untrue, just as the conspiracy in which the driver shot Kennedy, or the conspiracy in which all the photographs and home movies were faked, have been shown to be untrue. As I explained, there is no good reason to suppose that any long-term double-doppelganger scheme ever existed, because every aspect of it that has been examined in detail has been shown to be seriously flawed. Since there was no 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger scheme, what exactly was the problem with the question I raised?

John Kowalski, I don't recall you taking a large part in earlier 'Harvey and Lee' discussions, so I assume you haven't yet fallen into the paranoid rabbit hole, and are still amenable to reason. You write that I If by 'conspiracy' you mean the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger scheme, we know it can't be true. We know that not because of any made-up scenario but because many elements of the theory have been looked at in detail, and they all have serious faults. If you don't believe me, check some of the links I provided. If by 'conspiracy' you mean the plot to kill President Kennedy, I'm not saying that isn't true. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most of the critics of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense believe that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy of some sort. You can believe that without believing in a ridiculous, decade-long scheme involving fake Oswalds and fake Marguerites. There was no "Oswald double operation" in the 1950s. Again, check some of the links I provided. It's very likely that Oswald was indeed sent to the Soviet Union, but there's no need to invent a far-fetched 'Harvey and Lee' scheme to explain that. It's quite possible to claim that Oswald was involved in some sort of intelligence-related activity, in the Soviet Union and in the US, without inventing a ridiculous long-term scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers and however many people were needed to keep the show on the road for a decade. Likewise, Oswald could have been impersonated, in Mexico City and perhaps also in Dallas, with no doppelgangers being involved. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory explains nothing that doesn't have a simpler and more credible explanation. As for the question you find so unsettling: we know that the double-doppelganger scheme didn't happen; my question illustrated why it didn't happen. The scheme could never have happened, because anyone intending to send a 'Harvey and Lee'-type defector to the Soviet Union had a far easier way to achieve that goal.

David G. Healy writes: I am well acquainted with the Warren Report, thank you very much, and with Mr Zavada's report, which demolishes from a technical point of view the claim that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not the one that was in Zapruder's own camera. Zavada's report by itself refutes the claim that this part of the Zapruder film, or that part, or the whole film, is a fake. Anyone who's interested in reading Zavada's report can find a link to it here, along with articles discussing the report: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm It would be in your own interest to click on the links I included a few posts ago. The Oatmeal contains a number of useful and amusing tutorials on the accepted usage of English, for the benefit of those whose command of the language is limited. As well as being amusing, they are concise, which readers with a short attention span will appreciate. Most of the time, they also use simple words, a feature which some people might find helpful. Reading comprehension clearly isn't David's specialist subject. He keeps coming out with this mistaken claim, that anyone who objects to the most far-fetched and over-elaborate conspiracy theories must subscribe to the lone-nut theory. Does anyone share David's belief? If you do, you're wrong. It's quite possible to claim that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy of some sort, without claiming that everything connected with the assassination was a conspiracy. Now, David G. Healy, it's time for you to justify your apparent belief that the Zapruder film was altered. Since Paul Rigby (any relation to Raul Pigby?) brought up the matter of the presidential limousine swerving to the left and coming to a halt in the left-hand lane, let's start with that example. As I asked earlier, tell us exactly how it happened that all the relevant home movies and photographs were altered to disguise this left-hand swerve. There are three home movies and two still photographs that agree with the Zapruder film on this point. How were they all faked?

Jack White was a top-class fruitcake. You name it, he thought it was faked: the Zapruder film, most of the other assassination images, the moon landings, the planes flying into the World Trade Center, Lee Harvey Oswald, Marguerite Oswald. All fakes! White's appearance before the HSCA doesn't give him any credibility. The opposite, in fact. His ignorance got him shredded: http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html He didn't understand the simple fact that when you photograph an object from slightly different angles, the proportions of the object (in this case, the sixth-floor rifle) will change. White thought this meant that they were actually different rifles. He was an idiot. Few people have done more than Jack White to tarnish the public image of rational criticism of the lone-nut theory. Anyone who stumbles upon White's video and is tempted to believe a word he says should search for any obvious alternative explanations. There are plenty around. You could start here: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm That page contains plenty of links to articles critical of the whole 'Zapruder film is a fake' anomaly-hunting nonsense, including non-existent anomalies with the Stemmons Freeway sign. Thanks for that link to Josiah Thompson's article, Jonathan. I hadn't been aware of that one. Incidentally, the Moorman-in-the-street nonsense was thoroughly and easily debunked more than 20 years ago, as Thompson explains here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html The moral of the story is: if you think there's something wrong with this or that part of the Zapruder film, make an effort to see if common-sense explanations exist before claiming that it's a fake.

I wrote: David sort of replied: Firstly, David will find out what the word 'your' really means here: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling Secondly, I'd guess David's reply means that he does agree with Paul that all the films and photos were faked. Again: three home movies and two still photographs, plus the Zapruder film, show that the car did not move over into the left-hand lane. How did the masterminds manage to fake them all, given that: the films and photos came to light at different times; they were distributed and became publicly available at different times; and some of them were publicly available within a very short time of the assassination? How was it done? Please describe the process in detail, so that we can compare the plausibility of that process with the plausibility of the alternative: the witnesses who stated that the car moved left were mistaken. I'm not using this example just because it makes Paul and David look like a pair of credulous [deleted]. Remember, it was Paul who brought up these particular witnesses' statements in the first place. He evidently thought they were irrefutable evidence of fakery. But a minute's critical thought shows that these witnesses must have been mistaken. Firstly, David will find a good illustration of the accepted use of the apostrophe here: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe Secondly, the conspiracists did not have nigh on 60 years to perform their dastardly fakery. To take just one example, the Moorman photo was shown on TV less than three hours after the assassination. Copies were distributed among journalists soon after that, at which point they must have been out of the reach of any photo-fakers. Any alteration must have been done within a few hours. The problematic part of the photo, the police motorcyclists in the left-hand lane, occupy a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail. Then move on to the Altgens 7 photo and describe in detail how that one was altered in the time available. My first reply to this question would be: no idea. I wasn't there. As I understand it, no-one's even sure whether Kodak or Jamieson did the job. Sources offer differing accounts. Richard Trask speculates that they may have shared the work. In any case, my second reply would be: so what? Now, perhaps David will be brave enough to answer the question that Paul has avoided. How could the film-fakers have been sure that no photograph or home movie would come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?

John Kowalski writes: Oh, I have looked at the evidence presented in Harvey and Lee, and at the evidence presented on this forum by the cult's few believers. That evidence has been looked at by plenty of other people too. The theory has been done to death over the past couple of decades. Every element of the theory that has been looked at in detail has been shown to be, at best, poorly supported, and at worst outright nonsense. Just like other examples of extreme JFK assassination conspiracy theories, it relies overwhelmingly on reading far, far too much into common-or-garden anomalies in the evidence. Witness recollections from decades after the event, for example, are taken to be infallible. Documents and photographs are wilfully misinterpreted. For an example of the latter, check out the claim by some 'Harvey and Lee' believers that one of the doppelgangers had a 13-inch head: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy As you can see, it isn't just down to poor interpretation. Plain stupidity comes into it too. The 'Harvey and Lee' cult exists because some people (fortunately, not many) really want to believe that huge conspiracies exist, and they aren't too concerned about questioning their beliefs. Huge conspiracies make them feel good. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory is not a serious insight into the JFK assassination. It is a figure of fun, as these videos illustrate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvm-jqy1Bnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfKELTWKiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXq_c7Kc3To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDRPZddmxtY Unfortunately, being a figure of fun, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is liable to tar all critics of the lone-nut theory with the same brush. Look at these so-called critics! They think there were two Oswalds! They're all crazy! I guess the Warren Commission was right after all! You might want to use the search function on this website, and check the criticisms I and many, many others have made of 'Harvey and Lee' here. You could start with the following discussion of the ridiculous notion that two Oswald doppelgangers were arrested in the Texas Theater: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 Then you could pop over the road to the Reopen Kennedy Case forum, which contains a large number of discussions of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. This thread lists some of them: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations Others can be found by scrolling through this section, which includes a thread devoted to your comment: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked As you can see, I spent a lot of time looking at the evidence before asking my question. The question I posed may be hypothetical, but so is the proposition that there were two virtually identical Oswalds, one of whom vanished without trace immediately after the assassination, and two virtually identical Marguerites, one of whom vanished without trace immediately after the assassination. To understand why the question I posed requires an answer, you need to put yourself in the shoes of whichever group of masterminds is supposed to have set up the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger defector scheme. If they genuinely wanted to do what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims they wanted to do, namely send to the USSR a defector with a plausible American background who could understand what was being said around him in Russian, they had two options, one obvious and one very far from obvious. If such a scheme really had been planned, the masterminds would not have chosen the double-doppelganger option, because it was so far-fetched and elaborate that it would never even have occurred to them. Perhaps you could tell us why the masterminds might have chosen the far-fetched and over-elaborate option?

David G. Healy writes: If I've interpreted this correctly, David is asking me to find a copy of the film that contradicts the one we all know and love, and point out inconsistencies between the two, and explain why these inconsistencies couldn't have happened. Why? It's David, not me, who thinks there are 'disputed' images out in public. What has any of that got to do with the point I was making? If David is claiming that the Zapruder film is faked, it's up to him to: - tell us exactly which parts of the film have been altered (everyone who thinks the film is a fake seems to have a different opinion about which parts were altered, which is a pretty good sign that it's all just speculation); - describe in detail how such fakery was achieved; - and tell us why we should accept fakery when a far simpler explanation is available. The simpler explanation is, of course, that witness statements are often mistaken, and any such statements that contradict what we see in the Zapruder film (and in other images) can be dismissed as worthless anomalies. We've seen that Paul Rigby's witnesses, who claimed that the car pulled to the left and stopped, cannot be correct. Their statements are worthless anomalies. Does David Healy agree with Paul that the car pulled to the left? If so, how would he explain the fact that three other home movies and two photographs corroborate what the Zapruder film shows? Paul implied earlier that he thought all the films and photos were faked. Does David agree with Paul about this? If so, perhaps he could provide us with a credible explanation of how this huge task was achieved, and why we shouldn't just discard the witness evidence instead. This is crazy. Quite apart from the practical problem of making one fake after another, and the fact that the film contains no inconsistencies with the other films and photos, how would the fakers have got around the problem of all the bootleg copies that were in circulation long before 1975? How would they explain away all the inevitable inconsistencies? Related to the problem of inconsistencies between films, perhaps David could have a go at telling us how the conspirators could have ensured that no film or photograph would have come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?