Jeremy Bojczuk
-
Posts
1,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jeremy Bojczuk
-
-
Here's a challenge for the few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiasts.
Most aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory have been debated over and over again. The same topics have been promoted ad nauseam* by the theory's promoters, and criticised repeatedly by its critics: the Stripling witnesses, the arrest in the Texas Theater, the 13-inch head, and so on.
But there is one fundamental aspect that doesn't seem to have been described adequately, if at all, by the theory's promoters. It's the thinking behind the hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme.
We have been told that the purpose of the scheme was to produce a false defector to the Soviet Union. Proponents of the theory seem to be agreed that there were two requirements for this defector:
- Firstly, language. He needed to be able to understand the Russian that would be spoken around him in the Soviet Union, but he did not need to be a native speaker with an authentic Russian accent, because this would have given the game away.
- Secondly, background. He needed to possess a plausible background as a genuine American, and preferably as a genuine American serviceman.
We have also been told that the hypothetical scheme was hypothetically set up no later than the early 1950s. The defection of the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald occurred in 1959. The hypothetical masterminds behind the hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme thus had several years in which to hypothetically cultivate their hypothetical doppelgangers.
The hypothetical masterminds knew what their ultimate goal was, and they knew that they had plenty of time in which to achieve that goal. For some reason, the hypothetical masterminds decided that the best way to achieve their goal was to set up a long-term scheme involving two unrelated boys, who grew up to look virtually identical, with two unrelated, yet also virtually identical, mothers.
As far as I'm aware, the reason for that decision has not yet been explained by the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's proponents.
An important part of the 'Harvey and Lee' argument is missing. How did the hypothetical masterminds decide that a double-doppelganger scheme was the best solution to their problem?
In other words, the 'Harvey and Lee' theorists need to explain how, if the masterminds started out with this goal:
(a) We need a defector with an American background who can understand Russian!
they ended up with this decision:
(b) We'll recruit two unrelated boys from different continents who will be native speakers of two different languages! And we'll recruit the actual mother of one of those boys and another woman who will act as the mother of the other boy! And we will ensure that this other woman, despite being unrelated to the first woman, is virtually identical to her! And we will hope that when the two boys grow up several years later they too will look virtually identical!
What was the thinking behind their decision?
How did they get from (a) to (b)?
There doesn't appear to be any credible way in which those hypothetical masterminds would have reached that decision. Or is there? The question must have occurred to the 'Harvey and Lee' proponents, so they should have a ready answer for us. Over to you, boys! What's the answer? How did the hypothetical masterminds come up with that decision?
You see, the problem is that if those hypothetical masterminds really did want to produce such a defector, they had a far easier way to do so. All they had to do was:
- look at the 2.5 million or more Americans who were in the military in the early 1950s;
- select one genuine American serviceman with an above-average talent for languages;
- and allow him to learn Russian for several years.
There would have been more than enough suitable candidates for the role of American-defector-who-understood-Russian. There would have been more than enough time for a motivated person to learn Russian to the necessary level. This scheme would have produced the desired result, and would have had several advantages over the 'Harvey and Lee' scheme:
- Result: one hypothetical defector!
- Amount of fuss, expense and complication: not much!
- Number of doppelganger Oswalds required: none!
- Number of doppelganger Marguerites required: none!
Why did the hypothetical masterminds instead go for the vastly more complicated and implausible hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme when they had such an obvious solution to their hypothetical problem?
--
* My schoolboy Latin is a bit rusty, but ad nauseam is roughly translated as "if Jim copies and pastes those same 'Harvey and Lee' talking points one more time, I'm liable to throw up over my keyboard".
-
James,
You sent me a private message a few days ago informing me that some members had had their feelings hurt. You used the phrase "you are not always mindful of others feelings". The title of the message was 'Insensitive to other members views'. You sent this message the day after I had equated belief in the double-doppelganger theory with belief in creationism, astrology, crystal-waving and that the earth is flat. I assumed that you were referring to that post of mine, and that one or more members who were sympathetic to creationism or astrology had had their feelings dented. Fair enough; even though I had explained in my post the similarities that these beliefs have with the double-doppelganger theory, and why the beliefs were faulty, I resolved to try not to upset the feelings of creationists and similar folk.
As Robert points out, when I used the words 'ridiculous doppelganger inventions' I was describing the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger theory, not those who promote that theory. It was not an insult. The theory is literally ridiculous, in that it is a object of ridicule; people have been making fun of it for years, here and elsewhere.
Do 'Harvey and Lee' believers genuinely get offended when their pet theory is justifiably described as ridiculous? And if they do, is that sufficient reason for critics not to use that word? Again, fair enough; if that is the rule here, I'll abide by it.
I don't know how many people have complained about my posts, or how many complaints there have been. Evidently, most or all of these people have been 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiasts, rather than enthusiasts for such things as creationism, astrology, or a flat earth.
I don't know how many of the complaints you receive relate to other JFK-related topics. It would be interesting to learn the proportion of all complaints to you that have come from the small number of members who are 'Harvey and Lee' proponents, given that the 'Harvey and Lee' folk seem to have form in trying to get their critics banned from this forum: Michael Walton and Greg Parker are two former members here who claim to have been the victims of unreasonable sustained complaints from 'Harvey and Lee' proponents.
-
Denny Zartman asks me:
QuoteWho was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in 1960 or earlier, and why?
If you have so many answers and know so much, answer that question, please.
No-one. There's no solid evidence that Oswald's ID was being used by anyone other than the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.
The 'Hoover memo' storm-in-a-tea-cup doesn't show that there was a second Oswald. It shows that officials were worried that the ID of the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald might have got into the hands of the Soviets.
The context of Marguerite's behaviour, and of officialdom's response, is explained in Part 5 of Bill Simpich's The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_5.html
Tracy Parnell has written a good account of the Hoover memo and Oswald's birth certificate:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html
Tracy quotes Paul Hoch, who points out that the US officials took an interest in Marguerite's allegation because the Soviets were known to have misused such IDs in the past. Greg Parker, who helped Bill with the research for his article, makes the same point, and addresses Denny personally, here:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush
Greg writes that Marguerite's "search for Lee and that comment [that he took his birth certificate with him when he defected], were discussed in a series of memos going up the line, escalating ala Chinese Whispers, into the possibility that someone may be using Oswald's ID."
Just because several officials discussed Marguerite's claim, doesn't mean that several officials independently had evidence that Oswald's ID was being misused.
Denny also writes:
QuoteI've not been a proponent of the Harvey and Lee theory. I understand completely why someone would find it hard to believe. I instinctually find it difficult to believe myself; that's why I've never been a proponent. It is asking a lot of anyone to believe in the possibility that Oswald had a double shadowing him since childhood.
That's very encouraging. Before his recent outburst, Denny had always struck me as one of the more rational members of this forum. I'm glad to see that he hasn't fallen down the 'Harvey and Lee' rabbit hole.
I'd very much recommend that Denny reads Bill Simpich's Oswald Legend series, mentioned above. Bill shows that you don't need ridiculous doppelganger inventions in order to explain Oswald's defection and intelligence connections:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Oswald_Legend.html
Jeremy I thought we had an understanding. When you write that in your view some members post "ridiculous doppelganger inventions", fellow members who contribute to this thread can be offended when they legitimately consider that your remarks may refer to them. I fully accept that you are genuine in your views but it would help if you were more temporate in your language.
Be advised curtsey on this forum is something that is enforced on members especially when they stray from what is expected from all members.
Robustly argue your corner but do not do so by also insulting fellow members
James
-
Tracy Parnell writes:
QuoteI stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense.
John Armstrong took his case to a journalist from the Texas Monthly in 1998, but failed to convince the journalist, understandably.
I have it on good authority that the 'Harvey and Lee' brigade were interviewed on another occasion. There's a transcript here:
-
Denny Zartman writes:
QuoteIt's funny how the opponents of Harvey and Lee just keep spamming the forum with "they could have done it easier", pretty much admitting that all they have is their inability to believe in a long-term program with any degree of complexity.
Denny,
If you're referring to my question, so far unanswered by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, you seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at.
We know from innumerable threads on this forum and elsewhere that the 'Harvey and Lee' scheme didn't happen. Every element of the theory that has been examined in detail has been shown to be either poorly supported by the evidence or plainly contradicted by the evidence. If you don't believe me, check out the many links that I and others have provided. A couple of good places to start would be the Stripling witnesses thread and the Texas Theater thread. If you or anyone else finds something the critics have missed, please mention it on the appropriate thread.
The notion that Oswald and his mother were impersonated for over a decade is dead and buried, and has been for some time.
When I wrote this:
QuoteThe masterminds had a much simpler, cheaper, and more efficient way to achieve their goal: find an American with a knack for languages, get him up to speed in Russian, then send him off to Moscow. Here's the question the 'Harvey and Lee' faithful have been unable to answer: Why did the masterminds not do this?
I was making the point that the hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme simply could never have happened. We know that it didn't happen; I was illustrating why it didn't happen.
If that isn't clear enough, let me explain it in another way. Put yourself in the shoes of the hypothetical Bad Guys who wanted to do what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims some Bad Guys wanted to do:
- It is the early 1950s. You are thinking of sending a false defector into the Soviet Union at some point several years in the future.
- You decide that this defector needs to be able to understand the Russian that will be spoken around him.
- You decide that he also needs to have the background of a genuine American, ideally of a genuine American serviceman.
- You are aware that in the early 1950s there are at least 2.5 million Americans in the military at any one time.
- You are aware that your defector does not need to be an expert speaker of Russian. He only needs to be able to understand what is being said around him, and he should not have an authentic Russian accent.
- You are aware that you have several years in which to prepare your false defector.
What do you do? It's blindingly obvious what you would do. You would examine those 2.5 million American servicemen, and find one who had a talent for languages. You would encourage him to learn Russian to a reasonable level, and maybe provide some tuition if necessary.
That's the simplest, cheapest, and most efficient way to achieve your goal. Why would any other option even occur to you?
The 'Harvey and Lee' theory's ridiculously complicated long-term double-doppelganger scheme failed at the first hurdle. It not only didn't happen, but it could never have happened.
Postscript:
It shouldn't need to be said, but in case of further misunderstanding I'll say it anyway. Questioning the preposterous 'Harvey and Lee' theory does not imply support for the equally preposterous lone-nut theory. As Tracy Parnell has pointed out, the majority of 'Harvey and Lee' critics are also lone-gunman critics. Nor does it imply disbelief in the idea that Oswald's defection was insincere. You can explain the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald's defection as some kind of intelligence operation without having to invent doppelganger Oswalds and doppelganger Marguerites.
-
John Butler objects to my equating the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense to creationism, astrology, crystal-waving and believing that the earth is flat.
In the past, I've also used the faked-moon-landings analogy. I presume John wouldn't object to that one, given that Jack White, the eminent co-founder of double-doppelgangerism, also believed that the moon landings were faked:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5911-jack-whites-aulis-apollo-hoax-investigation-a-rebuttal/
What's the problem? The long-term double-doppelganger nonsense belongs to precisely the same category as these other beliefs. In each case, the belief is firmly contradicted by the balance of the relevant evidence, and those who hold the beliefs are worthy of ridicule.
Other similarities come to mind:
- Jim Hargrove's frequent copying and pasting of passages from Scripture is just like the behaviour of religious fundamentalists. By the way, as Jonathan points out, if there isn't a rule against Jim's copy-and-paste spamming of this forum, there really should be.
- Double-doppelganger doctrine is almost never questioned by its believers.
- Double-doppelganger doctrine is invulnerable to criticism. A point of doctrine is put forward; objections are made by rational critics; the objections are ignored by believers; and on the third day the point of doctrine rises again, whole and intact, with no acknowledgement that any objections had ever been made (see Jim's copy-and-paste spamming, above).
- Believers cannot accept that points of doctrine have been debunked, hence the frequent pleas by believers to keep debating the same points over and over again.
- Jim's merry-go-round of double-doppelganger debating points is somewhat like the creationist Gish Gallop. There was a magically shrinking Oswald doppelganger at the Bolton Ford dealership! [Objections are made to the Bolton Ford nonsense.] OK, but there was an Oswald doppelganger who attended Stripling! [Objections are made to the Stripling nonsense.] OK, but there were two doppelgangers arrested in the Texas Theater! [Objections are made to the Texas Theater nonsense.] OK, but one Oswald had a 13-inch head! [Objections are made to the 13-inch head nonsense.] OK, but there was a magically shrinking Oswald doppelganger at the Bolton Ford dealership! And round and round we go. Again, see Jim's copy-and-paste spamming, above.
- Double-doppelganger believers accept that their long-term scheme could never have happened, yet still they believe.
There are some differences. Creationism has a certain amount of political clout, at least in countries such as Iran, Nigeria and the USA. Astrology is a profitable business, as to a lesser extent is crystal-waving and other New Agey stuff. Double-doppelgangerism, on the other hand, doesn't have any political clout, and I assume Messrs Armstrong and Hargrove don't make any money from it (unless that apocryphal Hollywood film deal has finally turned up).
The most important difference is that, unlike these other superstitions, double-doppelgangerism hasn't caught on at all. Even in the world of the JFK assassination, which has more than its fair share of people who are attracted to implausibly complex conspiracies, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense is still very much a minority belief. As Bernie Laverick pointed out four years ago:
QuoteYou recruited about a dozen followers in 20 years. That's fantastic. Well done! You do know that more people believe that the Queen of England is a lizard than believe in H&L? In fact, I'd go further, more people would probably rather accept that she was one of the shooters than accept this relentless trolling disguised as a risible theory, one that relies on deliberate falsification and mistruths
Bernie wasn't wrong, by the way. Far more people believe that the queen is a lizard than believe that Oswald and his mother were each a pair of doppelgangers:
Ridicule is a useful tool for deflating spurious claims. Rational people frequently make fun of those who believe in long-debunked nonsense such as creationism, astrology, crystal-shaking, a flat earth, faked moon landings, and shape-shifting lizards. Why should believers in other forms of long-debunked nonsense, such as non-existent doppelgangers, be exempt?
P.S. Apologies to any creationists, astrologers, crystal-shakers, flat-earthers or fake-moon-landingers who are upset at being compared to believers in a long-term double-doppelganger scheme that even its believers accept could never have happened.
-
John Kowalski writes:
QuoteIf you are so confident in your your beliefs, why don't you make an argument here on this forum?
The points of doctrine that you want people to discuss here have already been discussed here, over and over again.
Jonathan has just provided you with a link to a discussion of the Stripling evidence ('demolition' might be a better word than 'discussion'). A couple of pages ago, I provided you with plenty of links to discussions of other points of doctrine. You could also use the search function to find threads on this forum devoted to pretty much every aspect of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense.
Click on those links, read the discussions, and if you find something that hasn't been dealt with, feel free to make a comment on the relevant thread.
I'll repeat that: if you have a new item of evidence or a new argument about interpreting existing evidence, do so on the proper thread. You have plenty of such threads to choose from. But there aren't any new items of evidence, are there?
Why do double-doppelganger believers insist on rehashing the same stuff over and over again? It's like being pestered by Jehovah's Witnesses. For more similarities between double-doppelganger believers and believers in other forms of superstition, see my next post.
If John Kowalski genuinely wants to discuss matters of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, he now has an offer to do so:
-
Tracy Parnell writes:
Quotethe simplest explanation is not to assume there were two boys.
Of course! It's an obvious point, but one the believers don't seem able to grasp. There are simple, everyday explanations for the discrepancies and anomalies that the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' case relies upon. Inventing a decade-long double-doppelganger scheme is just about the least simple explanation you could come up with.
This applies not only to modern interpreters of the evidence. Even back in the early 1950s, when the double-doppelganger scheme was allegedly started, the hypothetical masterminds of the scheme would have had a far simpler alternative available to them.
They supposedly needed someone who (a) spoke Russian reasonably well, and (b) possessed a plausible American background. Why would they have gone to the trouble and expense of raising a fake eastern European Oswald with a fake mother, and employing all the other people who would have been needed to keep the show on the road for a decade?
As I pointed out earlier on this thread:
QuoteThe masterminds had a much simpler, cheaper, and more efficient way to achieve their goal: find an American with a knack for languages, get him up to speed in Russian, then send him off to Moscow. Here's the question the 'Harvey and Lee' faithful have been unable to answer: Why did the masterminds not do this?
-
After nearly 60 years of research on the JFK assassination, this is what things have come to: a contest of incredibility between Armstrong's imaginary doppelgangers and Baker's imaginary amateur cancer researchers. It's like watching creationists battling it out against astrologers, or magic-crystal shakers versus flat-earthers.
For those of you who are banging your heads against your keyboards, you are not alone:
QuoteH and L vs Me and Lee...the perfect symmetry...both of them are a preposterous pack of outlandish lies... ... Never underestimate the need to believe in something...anything...be it incorporeal polyglot Hungarian doppelgangers or coarse featured con artists...
As Alex points out, the root cause is people's irrational urge to believe. No matter how outrageous a particular claim is, there's bound to be someone who seizes upon it to satisfy a psychological need:
- So a top-secret 5'11" Oswald doppelganger magically shrank himself down to 5'6" when he decided to start buying trucks in public. How did he manage that? I don't care! Praise Armstrong! I believe!
- She was Lee Oswald's girlfriend in New Orleans. No, really, she's not making it up. She has all the documents to prove it, or she did have, but they got lost or the dog ate them or something. Please send her lots of money! That's good enough for me! Yes, I believe! Does she take PayPal?
- How many Oswald doppelgangers were there altogether? There could have been as many as four! There was the 5'11" one, the 5'9" one, the 5'6" one, and the other one who was either 6'3" or 3'6" depending on whether I've put my glasses on the right way round. Praise Armstrong!
- How many of those doppelgangers went to the Soviet Union? Two! Oh yes! I believe!
- And how many of them had a 13-inch head? All of them! I believe!
I don't know about the Baker cult, but the 'Harvey and Lee' cult's few remaining devotees have acknowledged that their long-term double-doppelganger scheme could never have happened, yet still they believe. Praise Armstrong!
I noticed some remarks on another Ed Forum thread recently, bemoaning the media's disgraceful treatment of the JFK assassination. What we see here is part of the reason for that treatment. A serious historical topic has been infested by hucksters, charlatans, and deluded tin-foil-hatters.
The media tries to persuade the public that anyone who doubts the official explanation for the JFK assassination is a crackpot 'conspiracy theorist'. Where did they get that idea from, I wonder?
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuoteThe education system is teaching conformity, obedience and to trust reputable institutions such as government, banks, news networks etc. The one thing it removes is the individuals capacity to critically think
I agree with all of that, although I'm not sure things are beyond hope. Even Fox News-watchers can become functioning members of society, given the right encouragement and sufficient quantities of un-Murdoched information.
You mustn't underestimate the contagious property of reasonable ideas. Even in the few decades since the JFK assassination, a number of what used to be minority or subversive ideas have become very much more widely accepted: concern for the environment, for example, or the notion that various forms of discrimination, oppression, and other inequalities of power are unjustified. Ideas percolate, and things can change quite dramatically and suddenly if the conditions are suitable.
Anyway, I'd better step down from my soap box and return to the topic at hand.
QuoteUpon release, all that was needed was for it not to be completely obvious that there was a 2nd shooter to the masses. When most laymen watch, it did that.
I'm not convinced that's true. The 'back and to the left' head snap must be one of the most widely known facts among members of the general public with only a passing knowledge or interest in the JFK assassination. Surely almost everyone who sees the head snap for themselves in the Zapruder film must realise that it appears to contradict the lone-nut-firing-from-behind doctrine.
QuoteEditing only needed to hide or obscure very obvious stuff, like a limo stop or the exiting of brain matter through the rear of JFK’s skull.
Why make things more complicated than they need to be? We have an obvious, everyday explanation for the small number of witnesses who claimed that the limo stopped: they were mistaken, as witnesses often are. The horizontal 'exit debris' issue is something I've dealt with on at least two other threads recently (e.g. this reply to Chris himself) : there's no reason to assume that any of the assassination films would have captured it.
Over at least two decades, people have been spotting anomalies in the Zapruder film and other films and photographs. One by one, each supposed anomaly has been shown to have a reasonable, common-sense explanation, as Josiah Thompson has pointed out. Why do people keep reading too much into common-or-garden (and sometimes entirely imaginary) anomalies? What's the attraction of believing in huge, impractical conspiracies?
Then there are the practical problems. As we've seen in this thread and others, no-one has come close to explaining how four home movies and two photos could have been faked to eliminate as complex a procedure as the car swerving into the left-hand lane and stopping. Until someone comes up with a credible reason to doubt the Zavada report, we can be sure that any alteration of the Zapruder film simply cannot have happened.
-
Steven Kossor writes:
Quotefacts undeniably lead to the conclusion that the Zfilm is a fabrication. For example, frame 313 is the only one with a show of bloody tissue exploding from the vicinity of the head, meaning that the material erupted and then disappeared in just 1/18 of a second -- it didn't slow down or linger in the air as it certainly must have, to be captured on frames 314, 315, etc (if it was real material and not a painted-in special effect for that one frame for the purpose of blaming Lee Oswald for shooting JFK "from above and behind").
Unfortunately, Steven has neglected to perform some basic research. Check out "frames 314, 315, etc" and see if you can spot some of the brain matter that Steven claims isn't there:
- https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
- https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
- https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg
According to Steven, if the Zapruder film is genuine, it will include brain matter in those frames. If it isn't genuine, we won't see any brain matter.
What do we see? We see brain matter. Another supposed anomaly bites the dust.
Why did Steven jump in and assume, without checking, that the Zapruder film cannot have shown the brain matter hanging in the air? It must be because his urge to believe overcame any rational, skeptical thought processes.
This is a common problem with JFK assassination enthusiasts. What attracts them is the idea of a conspiracy, and the bigger the conspiracy, the better. Shooting a guy in a slow-moving open-topped car isn't exciting enough. That conspiracy can't be true; it is far too plausible. There has to be more to it! Let's go for a conspiracy that's really, really complicated and implausible!
But the JFK assassination need not have involved a cast of thousands and god-like masterminds with magical powers. It was a political event that just happened to involve more than one person. The conspiracy aspect is not the important factor.
The simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct.
-
Andrej Stancak writes:
QuoteThe remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head.
Yes, it was Jackie who did that. This is what she told the Warren Commission:
QuoteI was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back, you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.
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:
QuoteLook at how hard it is still today, with all of the modern analyses and technologies being used to study it, to convince people that the Zfilm is a work of fiction and can't be relied upon
"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:
QuoteIt looks like Jeremy is quoting me saying "This can't be true, because..." but those are actually his words, not mine.
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:
QuoteIt contracts it to those who suspect multiple shooters or, an alternative narrative to the WC. It doesn’t contradict it if you are your average dumbed down citizen
Steven agrees:
QuoteEven with all of its flaws, the Zfilm has been used to "show" what happened in Dallas, even to this day.
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:
QuoteI set out ... sitting in my West L.A. apartment ... documents that I had gathered ... I noticed ... I forget these details ... I realized the implication ... if you'd been a physics (or applied math) major,. which I was ... I had zero knowledge ... being "West L.A. based," I was very familiar ... I immediately went up there ... Within hours, I was seated at a table ... I learned that ... as I recall ... At that point, i learned ... I use that deliberately ... I believe I wrote about all of this ... as I recall ... with my new found familiarity with optical printers ... Groden never finished high school ... I just wrote ... Groden had the ethics of a kleptomaniac ... I have written about this before ... whatever I wrote, or spoke of, was based on many conversations that I had with Groden, and what he told me ... I believe it is a fact ... as I write this ... I believe ... From conversations over the years, I know ... More could be said; but I'll stop here, for now.
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:
QuoteThe idea is that confusion, all resolved to the Zfilm as the “official record,” results in the confirmation of the lone nut solution to all mysteries, and that’s the value of the Zfilm to the plotters (and why I believe an official movie of the killing was a planned part of the operation).
This can't be true, because the Zapruder film, far from confirming the lone-nut theory, actively contradicts it!
-
John Butler writes:
QuoteThe proper time for film alteration was from Nov. 22, 1963 to about May, 1964 or later after witnesses had been called to testify. ... Earlier films, particularly those that were shown earlier, could be seized and altered and who would know the difference?
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:
QuoteDisplayed on NBC-TV about 3:15 CST that Friday afternoon, by Saturday Moorman's photo was being carried by scores of newspapers around the country through the UPI and AP wirephoto networks.
(Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.246)
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:
QuoteBronson and Z do not match each other.
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:
QuoteThere appears to have been a very thorough collection/gathering of all films (and photographers) in the hours and days immediately following the assassination.
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:
Quotewhere Jeremy is mistaken is that he wrongly assumes that EVERY piece of photographic evidence would have to be altered to hide the car stop and all would have to be synced up together to match each other.
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:
QuoteAs the younger generation might put it, you are "out to lunch."
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?
QuoteI spent hours with the Chism, Franzen and the Newmans, back in 1971. The car stopped. Period. there is no/was no question about it.
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.
QuoteThe primary importance of the car-stop witnesses is that they constitute the evidence that the Zapruder film (and other civilian films) were altered, to eliminate the stop.
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:
QuoteLots of people reported that the limo stopped, yet none of the movies show it. Either all of the car stop witnesses are wrong, or all of the films were cut and frames showing the stop were removed from all of them before the film was given to its owners.
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
QuoteBoth options are improbable but they are mutually exclusive, so only one can be correct. Given the existence of the technology in close proximity of both time and space, the film altering option is not any more improbable than all of the car stop witnesses being mistaken.
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?
Quoteit [the Zapruder film] has been featured prominently as the “time clock” of the killing
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:
QuoteThe scheme was unnecessarily complex, expensive and inefficient. The possibility of setting it up would surely not even have occurred to the masterminds. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory's preposterous long-term double-doppelganger scheme could never have been implemented.
The masterminds had a much simpler, cheaper, and more efficient way to achieve their goal: find an American with a knack for languages, get him up to speed in Russian, then send him off to Moscow. Here's the question the 'Harvey and Lee' faithful have been unable to answer:
Why did the masterminds not do this?
EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Jonathan is correct. I'm not sure what point John Butler was trying to make, but his post certainly does not answer my question. Perhaps he could have another go, and explain exactly what he was getting at.
Here's the problem that the 'Harvey and Lee' folks have so far failed to solve:
The hypothetical masterminds behind the hypothetical 'Harvey and Lee' scheme needed to come up with a false defector who understood Russian and had a convincing American background.
What made them decide to implement a complicated and implausible long-term scheme involving two unrelated boys who they hoped would grow up to become virtually identical, and two unrelated women who already happened to be virtually identical, when a far more straightforward alternative was available?
What process of reasoning would have led them to that decision?