Jeremy Bojczuk

I've just read through your reply again, and one more point stands out. You write: The standard interpretation is that the film contains evidence for at least three shots: Kennedy is clearly reacting to at least one shot as he emerges from behind the road sign at frames 224 onward; The obvious head shot at frame 313; Connally's reaction at around frame 238, which some people dispute but which Connally himself took as evidence of a shot. That's good evidence for at least three shots, to which we can add one that missed and hit James Tague, which the Zapruder film can't be expected to show. The Zapruder film is not inconsistent with at least four shots. Those incompetent Bad Guys messed up again! (Edit: corrected a typo - '238' was originally '338'.)

Thanks for your reply, David. There are two points I'd like to make. Firstly, the default position with any item of physical evidence has to be that it is authentic. It's up to those who allege fraud to prove their case. That certainly hasn't happened here, since no-one has been able to show a single inconsistency between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic evidence that doesn't have a straightforward explanation. The second point is to do with the use of witness testimony to support allegations of fraud. Over the years, many examples have been cited of witness statements that contradict what is shown in the Zapruder film and in other parts of the photographic record. You yourself mention Marie Muchmore, who apparently claimed not to have captured the shooting, although her film clearly contains several frames taken during the shooting. Earlier, you mentioned Officer Chaney, who claimed to have driven his motorcycle in a way that contradicts what is shown in the Zapruder film. How are we to interpret these contradictions? Given what is commonly accepted about the fallibility of human memory, the obvious interpretation is that the witnesses were mistaken. It's the principle of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation. On the one hand, a witness remembered wrongly; on the other hand, a large amount of work was undertaken in altering a still photograph (such as Altgens 6), or an even larger amount of work was undertaken in altering a home movie. It's only when a photograph or film or other item of physical evidence has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be inauthentic, a standard that hasn't even been approached in the case of the Zapruder film, that you should assume that any contradictory statements by witnesses are accurate. To avoid confusion, by 'statement' I'm referring to what a witness actually said, rather than what he or she was reported in a written document to have said. Years ago, there was a perfect example of the problems that arise when too much trust is placed in witness statements. In James Fetzer's Murder in Dealey Plaza (on pp.6-7 of the colour insert after p.324), Jack White wrote that "Mary Moorman and her friend Jean Hill have consistently maintained that they stepped off the curb and into the street to take this photo [Moorman's famous Polaroid, taken immediately after the fatal head shot] ... This puzzled me, since the Zapruder film shows them on the grass, about 2 feet south of the curb." The author then conducted an experiment, taking measurements which led him to conclude that "Mary stepped off the curb to take the photo. Thus, the Z-film is faked." Unfortunately for the credibility of this theory, Moorman is shown standing on the grass not only in the Zapruder film but also in the Muchmore and Nix films. If we claim that the Bad Guys faked this part of the Zapruder film, we are forced to claim that they also faked the other two films, and we've crossed the border into tin-foil hat territory. You may not be surprised to learn that the 'Moorman in the street' theory was invented by someone who apparently took seriously the idea that the moon landings were faked. Three years later, Fetzer's The Great Zapruder Film Hoax devoted two whole chapters to what it called "the Moorman controversy." A team of researchers, all of them clever people with lots of letters after their names, went to Dealey Plaza and took more measurements, which provided "powerful evidence that Mary was in the street", in Professor Fetzer's words (p.239). As it turned out, the measurements were inaccurate (see http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html for an illustrated account). More accurate measurements showed that Mary Moorman was actually standing exactly where the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films show her to be standing. It was no longer necessary to claim that all three films were faked, and we could put our tin-foil hats away. In this case, the rational interpretation was shown to be correct: Mary Moorman, like everyone else, had a less than perfect memory. Interestingly, her official statement on the day of the assassination, which is actually reproduced on p.276 of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, begins with the words "Mrs Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass ...". I'm sure you'll agree with me that Professor Fetzer is the perfect figurehead for the 'Zapruder film is fake' community. But even professors make mistakes sometimes. So eager were the researchers to find a conspiracy everywhere they looked, it didn't occur to them to ask why on earth the Bad Guys should have wanted to transplant Mary Moorman and Jean Hill from the street onto the grass. Not only would it give the game away, but it must have generated extra work when fabricating the film. This failure to apply the principle of Occam's Razor caused yet another 'Zapruder film is fake' claim to bite the dust.

It's no secret that the film was damaged and spliced, and that Commission Exhibit 885 is inaccurate: two frames were printed in the wrong order, one frame was omitted, and another frame was printed twice. The point at issue is whether the Bad Guys in some way altered the film to materially change its depiction of events in Dealey Plaza. In what way does the Zapruder film as we know it implicate Oswald and justify the single-bullet theory? There is the lapel flap in frame 224, which is supposed to have been caused by a shot hitting Kennedy and then Connally, but it's hardly conclusive. Governor Connally himself implied that he didn't believe this interpretation, by claiming that he wasn't hit until several frames later. Presumably the lapel flap was painted in by the Bad Guys, who forgot to send Connally the memo (as we will see, that wasn't the only thing they forgot to do). The Zapruder film as we know it actually provides plenty of evidence, some of it found nowhere else, that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis: It is the only item of evidence which restricts the official shooting time, or at least the only plausible version of the shooting time, to less than six seconds. Without this constraint, it would have been easy to claim that the hypothetical lone nut had more than enough time to aim carefully and fire three shots from his rickety old rifle, hitting the target twice. It is fundamentally due to the Zapruder film that we know that the timing alone makes the lone-nut hypothesis extremely improbable, since a majority of the expert marksmen who have attempted to duplicate Oswald's supposed feat have been unable to do so. The Zapruder film is the only item of photographic evidence which shows Connally's apparent reaction to being shot, several frames after Kennedy has already been hit. Again, Connally himself stated that this element of the Zapruder film matched his recollection of the shooting. If Connally was correct, the Zapruder film explicitly contradicts the single-bullet theory. And then there's the 'back and to the left' reaction to the head shot. Whether or not it actually implies a shot from the front, that's how it appears to most people. Those frames of the Zapruder film may have been the single most significant factor in rekindling public scepticism of the case against Oswald, firstly after the early bootleg screenings, and then after the film's television broadcast in 1975 and its inclusion in Oliver Stone's JFK. That's what makes the whole 'Zapruder film is faked' thing so bizarre and laughable. The Bad Guys went to all this trouble to fake the film, but they forgot to replace the parts that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis. Whoops! They only faked the parts they didn't need to fake. Silly Bad Guys! And having incompetently faked the film to fool the public, they didn't force it on the public at every opportunity. Instead, they kept it out of the public's view for as long as they could. The point Michael Walton made is that the way the argument is presented, as a long series of unexplained, cryptic equations, is a terrible way to communicate a sound argument. It is, however, a good way to disguise a weak argument. This method may work with the faithful, but if you want to convince open-minded non-believers, you need to set out the case for alteration in a way that makes it as easy as possible for people to follow. You could begin by telling us in plain English exactly which elements of the Zapruder film you consider not to be authentic. Did the Bad Guys fake the whole thing, including all those frames that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis? If not, precisely which frames have been tampered with? The less vague you can make it, the less like paranoid wishful thinking your case will seem to be. Once you have defined the extent of the forgery, perhaps you could justify your claim by pointing out exactly how the faked frames are inconsistent with other items of the photographic record. Unfortunately, no-one has yet managed to identify a single such anomaly that doesn't have a non-conspiratorial explanation, which leads us to only two possible conclusions: either the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, has been tampered with, or the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, is authentic. Personally, I'd go for the latter option. Pardon me for intruding into your private discussion! I thought it was open to any member of the Education Forum.

One of the problems with the 'Zapruder film was faked' argument is its proponents' lack of precision about what is supposed to have been done to the film. At least one of the contributors to James Fetzer's book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, claims that the entire film is a fabrication. I presume that's the standard point of view among those who consider the film to have been altered. David and Chris - how much of the Zapruder film do you think is not authentic? If you're not saying that the whole thing is a fabrication, exactly which frames are genuine and exactly which frames are fake? Were the faked frames completely faked, or do they contain elements from the original images? If the latter, exactly which elements of each frame are genuine and which elements are fake? As Michael Walton mentioned some time ago, you need to sit down and compose a properly argued article rather than burping out a series of one-line mathematical equations and simple-minded debating points, which aren't going to convince anyone who isn't already a believer. To convince an open-minded non-believer, you will need to provide a detailed account, with evidence, of which specific parts of the film you think have been altered. Appropriate evidence would consist of precisely documented inconsistencies with other pieces of the photographic record. Unfortunately, as Josiah Thompson pointed out here and here, no-one has yet been able to come up with a single apparent anomaly that doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation. If you claim that a specific part of the Zapruder film is fake, and that part turns out to be consistent with another piece of the photographic record, you will need to explain how the photograph or home movie in question was altered to match the faked version of the Zapruder film. Incidentally, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax isn't completely without merit. The book contains many entertaining examples of some amazingly sloppy and paranoid thinking, and I'd recommend it to anyone with a sceptical outlook and a sense of humour. My favourite part is the account on pages 222-237 of a visit to Dealey Plaza by a guy who imagined that a number of small devices, attached to lamp posts and a road sign and clearly labelled as wireless rain sensors, were actually microphones intended to pick up the conversations of tourists on the grassy knoll. Not only that, but one particular lamp post was able to be raised or lowered or slanted in order to "discredit any findings regarding the incorrect lamppost orientation in the Zapruder film." As if that wasn't bad enough, dastardly unseen forces sabotaged the same guy's digital camera, his electric shaver, and even his shirts. Actually, thinking about it, this last part may not be as crazy as it sounds. If They have the magical power to alter the Zapruder film, what's to stop Them messing about with someone's shirts?

Anyone who hadn't read the first post in this thread, which contains the sentence, "Zfilm alteration equation coming up", probably wouldn't have much of an idea what this endless parade of mathematics was about. It would be nice if each formula was accompanied by some sort of explanation of its significance, although it's easy to understand why this hasn't been done. There's an amusing critique of this nonsense here: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13311095-albert-doyle?page=12 As Michael Walton implies, public perception of the JFK assassination debate is liable to be affected negatively by what goes on in forums such as this. The crazier the theories that are being promoted, the less credible the genuine critics of the lone-nut hypothesis will seem to be. Imagine that you are a newcomer to this case, curious to discover exactly what the arguments are, and this is what you find: All the shots were fired from the front. JFK's corpse was magically whisked away from Air Force One, without anyone noticing, so that surgeons could manufacture evidence of shots from behind. As for the shot that hit Governor Connally in the back, we'll ignore that and hope that no-one notices. JFK wasn't actually killed in Dealey Plaza. He is still alive in the basement of Parkland Hospital, possibly accompanied by Elvis Presley. The person known as 'Lee Harvey Oswald' was actually two unrelated people, 'Harvey' and 'Lee', who had been picked out as young boys by the CIA, in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look sufficiently alike to fool their families, though not so much alike as to fool an amateur investigator. JFK's driver, who was sitting to his left, somehow managed to shoot JFK in the right side of the head despite not having a gun in his hand. To eliminate suspicion that Oswald was standing on the TSBD's steps, James Altgens' photograph was altered by superimposing over Oswald's face the face of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it generated suspicion that Oswald was standing on the steps. All of these theories aren't equally crazy. The theory that JFK and Elvis are still alive in the basement of Parkland Hospital seems perfectly reasonable, at least when compared to the others. But all of them are harmful because they reflect a view of how the world works that normal, sane people will not recognise, and because the crazy theories are liable to drown out rational criticism. In the abstract, the idea that the Zapruder film was altered isn't one of the wackiest ideas polluting the JFK assassination debate. After all, physical evidence does sometimes get altered in criminal cases. As it happens, of course, there is no good reason to believe that the Zapruder film has been altered, most importantly because no-one has been able to demonstrate even a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic evidence beyond a vague "this kinda sorta looks a bit strange to me, and that's all the proof I need". If the Zapruder film as we know it is not genuine, dozens of photographs and other home movies must have been altered to match the new version of the Zapruder film. Good luck trying to prove that one. If anyone still doubts that the Zapruder film is authentic, these two essays by Josiah Thompson should enlighten them: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/29th_Issue/jt_zfilm.html

"Lovelady's shoulder ... simply doesn't look right." "it very much appears that his image has been pasted there." "it looks like the guy's image was pasted there" There's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy speculation, but this is just uninformed guesswork. How, exactly, does Lovelady's shoulder not look right? Detailed measurements would be helpful. Two points need to be made. Firstly, it is a serious mistake to attribute any visual discrepancies to manipulation when a perfectly innocent explanation exists. A poor-quality reproduction of a photograph will normally contain all sorts of anomalies that don't exist in the original image. If you are looking at a reproduction that is several generations removed from the original, there is every reason to suppose that features such as vaguely strange-looking shoulders are due solely to the physical process of copying the image, then copying the copy, and copying the copy of the copy, and so on. Secondly, it is not enough simply to make assertions. Rather than blithely stating that "even though it was released early and would have had to be altered quickly, I still believe it was altered," you really need to show how any alterations could have been made in the time available. The Altgens photograph was distributed just 33 minutes after it was taken. Any alterations must have been made during this time, but it is difficult to see how this was possible: - James Altgens made his way from Dealey Plaza to the Dallas Morning News building, where he handed his film to a technician; - the film was developed, washed, fixed, washed again and dried; - prints were exposed, developed, fixed, washed and dried; - one print was chosen, and a caption added to it; - finally, the print was scanned and transmitted. Anyone with experience of photographic development and printing will know that doing all of this in just 33 minutes was quite an achievement. How much time was left over for altering the image? One minute? A few seconds? How, exactly, could any alterations have been made in the time available? Come to that, exactly what alterations were made, and for exactly what purpose? How did the unnamed manipulators decide, within a few minutes of the assassination, what alterations needed to be made? Did they follow Altgens to the Dallas Morning News photo lab, or were they hiding in the darkroom all along, just on the off-chance? If they wanted to remove whatever incriminating evidence was contained within the Altgens photograph, why didn't they simply destroy the film? Why didn't they bother themselves with any of the other people whose photographs and films captured the entrance to the book depository? I'm sorry for stamping on what must have seemed like a harmless piece of speculation, but doubting the integrity of the Altgens photograph has an unfortunate history which, either deliberately or accidentally, made critics of the official account of the assassination look like a bunch of raving lunatics. I go into this in more detail here: http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps

Perhaps Dr Brandenburg "said that photos of the surface of Mars reveal population centers that had walls around them". He probably meant that photos of the surface of Mars reveal shapes and colours that are not inconsistent with population centers that had walls around them. I'd guess from the absence of media coverage that those shapes and colours are interpreted very differently by a large majority of other specialists. Dr Brandenburg's credentials entitle him to a hearing, but they don't demand that his ideas be accepted uncritically by non-specialists. When faced with a question that requires specialist knowledge, there are two common responses by non-specialists. The rational response is to reflect the views of the whole group of relevant specialists. The irrational response is to pick and choose what to accept, based on your particular personality and ideology. A couple of examples come to mind. A small minority of climate experts doubt the significance of anthropological global warming. An even smaller minority of qualified biologists and geologists claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Among the general population, the minority expert view of global warming will seem credible to political reactionaries, and the minority expert view of the earth's history will seem credible to religious fundamentalists. The minority expert view of the Martian landscape will seem credible to science fiction enthusiasts. Not that there's anything wrong with science fiction, of course. I used to read a lot of it when I was 12. Thank you for that. I was wondering what this bizarre idea had to do with the JFK assassination. If I wanted to discredit those who question the official account of the assassination, I could do worse than associate their ideas with far-fetched speculations about intergalactic wars. Stay away from those crazy JFK assassination conspiracy theorists! They believe that Martian civilisation was destroyed in a nuclear attack by little green men from the planet Zog!

William Ney makes a convincing case that there is a "growing body of evidence ... that two thermonuclear devices were exploded on Mars long ago to destroy the civilization there" and that there may have been "a solar-system war that left Mars a poisoned desert and the Earth a place where surviving powers carried on the contest." I would urge Ney to ignore all those so-called 'scientists' who claim that there is no good evidence that any sort of civilization has ever existed on Mars. Of course there's no evidence! The thermonuclear devices destroyed all the evidence! Isn't it obvious? He should also ignore anyone who claims that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of "surviving powers" which carry on interstellar wars. The poor, deluded fools! If the "surviving powers" are powerful enough to wage "a solar-system war that left Mars a poisoned desert", surely they are powerful enough to hide all the evidence of their existence? When you think about it, it all makes sense! It seems entirely possible that, as Ney states, "our thermonuclear tricks might alarm the Watchers" and that "Hiroshima told the Watchers that we were on our way out into the galaxy with our bombs." If anyone thinks that this is some sort of paranoid fantasy, I would point out that "Watchers" is written with a capital W, which proves beyond any doubt that they are a real thing and not the product of some science-fiction fan's over-eager imagination. As Ney states, "the basics of the UFO story are probably true: THEY probably have been here a long time. And if so, THEY are the big, utterly crippling hole in our attempts to make sense of domestic and foreign policy since the [fourth intergalactic] war." And that isn't all that THEY get up to. You know when you put your phone or your keys down and you can't find them? That's because THEY moved them.

"with regard to the minor inconsistencies in my internet postings, I sometimes improvise when I'm in a hurry." - Paul Trejo. "Necessity is the mother of improvisation." - anon. "I cannot improvise. It was I who cut down the cherry tree." - George Washington (or maybe not: http://listverse.com/2008/05/15/top-10-famous-historic-misquotes/ ).

Author of 22 November 1963 : The Essential JFK Assassination Book http://22november1963.org.uk/a-brief-guide-to-the-jfk-assassination