Jeremy Bojczuk

Chris, I'm sure your mathematical calculations are exemplary, but there are two serious problems with your approach. The first is the 'so what?' problem. Even if you are able to come up with a way of showing that the data in Commission Exhibit 884 (Hearings and Exhibits, vol.17, p.902; see also p.901) is consistent with a hypothetical ur-Zapruder film which contained more frames than the actual Zapruder film, so what? If there's a conflict between the data in CE 884 and what we see in the Zapruder film, the obvious answer is not that the Zapruder film has been faked by having frames removed, but simply that the data in CE 884 is wrong. What grounds do you have for assuming that CE 884 is accurate? The second problem is that, according to expert opinion, the type of forgery you are claiming for the Zapruder film cannot have happened. My understanding is that copying images from one Kodachrome film onto another Kodachrome film will inevitably increase the grain and contrast and will distort the colour balance. Roland Zavada, who helped to invent Kodachrome, examined the film in the National Archives and found that it does not contain any of these anomalies: According to Prof Raymond Fielding, such visual anomalies would have been obvious: If these two acknowledged experts are correct, the Zapruder film in the National Archives cannot have had any frames removed (apart from the uncontroversial splicing), and it cannot be a copy of another film. It must be the film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. That, I'm afraid, is the final nail in the coffin of the 'Zapruder film is a fake' theory. In the absence of a more credible expert opinion, we are obliged to conclude that the extant Zapruder film is genuine. Do you know of any experts who have examined the film in the Archives and whose opinions contradict those of Zavada and Fielding?

Several people have mentioned that Mary Poppins and the like show that it was possible to make alterations to films. The point is that, according to expert opinion, it is not possible to make the sort of alterations that have been claimed for the Zapruder film without leaving detectable traces. See post 52 on page 4 for quotations from Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, the experts in question. Unless anyone can come up with a more credible expert opinion, the question of forgery is settled: the Zapruder film in the National Archives is authentic.

Sandy writes: But we can be sure that the driver did not come to a complete stop, because there are three films which show the opposite. Not only must the Zapruder film have been faked, but the Nix film and the Muchmore film must have been faked too, and in such a way that they matched the faked Zapruder film. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Muchmore film was not developed until the 25th, and was shown on TV later that day, leaving next to no time for any alterations to have been made. If anyone thinks it is even remotely plausible that all three films were faked, then they are entitled to their opinion, but I can't imagine that any rational readers of this thread would agree with them.

Tom writes: I presume you're referring to these questions: Question 1. Have a look at these three frames: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg Here's another version of frames 314 and 315: http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/z-frags.jpg. Question 2. The back of JFK's head is in shadow. Perhaps you can produce a good-quality reproduction of a frame which shows something you think shouldn't be there, such as JFK's unruffled hair or a painted-in blob. I'd guess you think there's a painted-in blob, since you wrote, in one of your self-deleted posts: I hope you are at last able to name these experts, and tell us which copy of the film they were using. Question 3. You must be referring to the flap of skin and bone that hangs down from the right side of his head. As far as I can tell, this damage is consistent with what the relevant autopsy photographs and X-rays show. Perhaps you can produce a good-quality reproduction of a frame which shows something else. Question 4. As I've already pointed out, there is no good reason to suppose that the "impossibly fast" head turn was impossibly fast. Here are the two sources I cited earlier: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=581 Now, here are a couple of questions for you: As I pointed out in post 52 on page 4, two undoubted experts, Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, have concluded that the Zapruder film in the National Archives cannot have been forged by having frames removed or by being copied. If they are correct, that's the end of the line for the 'Zapruder film is a fake' theory. Are you aware of any experts who contradict Zavada and Fielding? If you know of no such experts, what is it that prevents you from agreeing with Zavada and Fielding?

Michael writes: Expert opinion, as far as I'm aware, is that copying images from one Kodachrome film onto another Kodachrome film will inevitably create increased grain and contrast and will distort the colour balance. According to Roland Zavada, the film in the National Archives does not show any signs of these anomalies: Prof Raymond Fielding points out that such visual anomalies would have been obvious: In that document, Zavada makes a very telling point: If these experts are correct, the film in the National Archives must be the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, and any forgery that involved removing frames or copying the orginal film, simply cannot have happened. Is there an expert opinion that disagrees with Zavada and Fielding? If not, the question of authenticity is settled: the Zapruder film in the Archives has not been faked.

Tom writes: And I never claimed that you did. You seem prone to making exaggerated claims. Here's an example from the crazy mathematics thread, which you wisely deleted: Would you care to provide a documentary source for this? Tom also writes: How are we to judge Mr McMahon's reliability? In his interview with the ARRB, he himself gives us some clues: In your opinion, Tom, how reliable a witness is Mr McMahon?

Tom writes: This thread is about the alleged forgery of the Zapruder film. The first words in the first post are: "Zfilm alteration equation coming up." It is perfectly relevant to show why the assumption behind the thread is unjustified, and that there is no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film has been faked. If someone starts a thread in an attempt to illustrate the mechanism by which the moon landings footage was faked, would it not be reasonable to point out the faults in the assumption behind that thread, no matter how strongly the moon landings enthusiasts might want their beliefs to be protected from criticism?

Tom writes: Sorry to hear that your sense of humour has gone missing, Tom. The fact remains that people's memories are fallible. Brugioni was interviewed several decades after the events he claimed to recall. If you find him reliable, that's fine by me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he may have been mistaken about one or two things. How did you come to that conclusion? Of course it isn't true that "ALL people's memories are unreliable after some unstated time period", nor did I ever suggest such a thing. I notice that after I challenged a couple of equally exaggerated claims that you made on the crazy mathematics thread, you went back and deleted your posts. I hope you don't mind my quoting the whole of the post you made here, just in case. Tom also writes: I don't have a strong opinion about most of the details of the shooting, largely because I don't think the evidence permits us to come up with many definitive answers, and partly because some of those details aren't important. Number of shooters? Almost certainly more than one. Whether there were two, three, or thirty-seven shooters, it doesn't affect our understanding of the important question: why the assassination happened. If you're interested in my interpretation of the assassination, you can find out more here.

Tom, I hope you'll make one small exception to your decision not to write posts that don't specifically refer to Chris's mathematics. In one of your self-deleted posts, you wrote: And I replied: I'm genuinely interested in finding out whether or not there is any credible evidence for this sort of forgery in the Zapruder film, especially as someone else had made a similar allegation earlier in this thread, again without providing a source for his claim. As far as I'm aware, it is not possible to copy images from one Kodachrome film, such as the one Abraham Zapruder was using in his camera, onto another Kodachrome film, such as the one in the National Archives which some people think is not the one Zapruder was using in his camera, without creating anomalies such as increased grain, increased contrast, and inaccurate colour balance. Roland Zavada, who helped to invent Kodachrome, has examined the film in the National Archives. He concluded that the film does not possess any visible anomalies. I don't claim any expertise in this area myself, by the way, and I'll be happy to change my mind if I've misunderstood anything or if a more credible expert opinion can be cited. This is what Zavada had to say: The absence of these anomalies implies that the film in the Archives is indeed the one that Zapruder was using in his camera. This by itself rules out pretty much every type of forgery that has been proposed. But it may not rule out the type of forgery you mentioned: the application of coloured dye to a handful of frames of the film that had been in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. Who are the photographic experts who claim that the back of JFK's head was painted over, and which copy of the film were they looking at?

Tom writes: Thank you. You must be referring to the point I made in my reply to Sandy, that human memory is fallible. Remind me, since I've forgotten, but exactly how many decades after the assassination was Brugioni interviewed? Three? Four?

Tom Neal writes: That's a nice collection of dusty old assertions, most of which were debunked long ago. I've got some more: Why doesn't the Zapruder film show Elvis Presley in the back seat? Well, then? Explain that one if you can! Why can't we see Connally doing a handstand immediately before the head shot? Come on! What have you got to say about that? Why doesn't the film show Greer launching a javelin at Kennedy? Obviously the film has been faked! Let's take the example of Greer's "impossibly fast" head turn. The best account of the head turn nonsense is this comprehensive debunking by a certain James R. Gordon: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html. Anyone who is honestly interested in finding out whether or not the Zapruder film has been faked would surely have discovered this article before posting an online question about Greer's imaginary "impossibly fast" head turn. Greer's "impossibly fast" head turn was also dealt with by Larry Peters and others on this very forum years ago, at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=581, another online resource that an objective researcher would surely have discovered. Larry writes: "Why does the limo driver make impossibly fast movements turning his head to see over his shoulder?" The simple answer is: he doesn't, and everyone who knows what they're talking about has been aware of this for years. It's an interesting thread. Larry also disposes of the ridiculous suggestion that the Muchmore film and Moorman photograph were faked. He points out that the Muchmore film was undeveloped until it was sold to UPI on the 25th, and that it was shown on TV later that day, leaving the Bad Guys next to no time to manipulate it. The same applies to the Moorman photograph, which was shown on TV three hours after the assassination. The fact that the Muchmore film and the Moorman photograph agree with what we see in the Zapruder film implies that at least the relevant section of the Zapruder film cannot have been faked either. Later in that thread Clint Bradford has a go at the admittedly easy target of Jack White, the guy who gave serious thought to the idea that the moon landings had been faked, and recounts a list of claims of alteration that turned out to be nonsense. Unfortunately, he fails to deal with the important question of Connally's handstand, which I think leaves open the possibility that the Zapruder film was indeed faked.

Sandy, I misunderstood your original comment. Sorry - my fault! Exactly why this topic hadn't been taken up by assassination enthusiasts, I'm not sure. Those alleging forgery concentrated mainly on looking for anomalies between witness statements and what we see in the film, and those alleging authenticity had no reason to doubt the intersprocket images. As far as I'm aware, no-one has refuted Roland Zavada's claim that cameras like Zapruder's did indeed record images between the sprocket holes, and that in many cases these images occupied the whole of the available area, just as we see in the Zapruder film. If that's true, the question is settled, and the Facebook guy's suggestion is incorrect. I'd like to take up one point that you made in reply to Michael: Many similar charges have been made that boil down to: This or that witness statement is contradicted by what we see in a photograph or film; therefore the photograph or film must have been faked. But in these cases there's always a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation: the witnesses were mistaken. We can't usually prove conclusively that one or the other explanation is correct, although that has been done with one claim beloved by alterationists, the old 'Moorman in the street' nonsense (see http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html). In most cases it's a question of which explanation is the more likely to be correct. On the one hand, we know that human memory is fallible and that people often misremember things. On the other hand, altering a photograph or a home movie would have required an enormous amount of effort, and that's with the assumptions that the alteration in question was technically possible and that a suitable opportunity existed in which to make the alteration. It isn't difficult to see that the 'mistaken witness' explanation is by far the more plausible. At least, that's my opinion. Those who think that everything in the world is a conspiracy will find the conspiratorial explanation more plausible. If that's what they think, that's fine by me. I'll leave the reader to make up his or her own mind. In the case of the supposed limousine stop, we can be virtually certain that it didn't happen, because it isn't just the Zapruder film that shows the car failing to stop. The Muchmore and Nix films appear to match what we see in the Zapruder film. If faking the Zapruder film was difficult, faking all three films would have been as difficult as winning the lottery three weeks in a row. To claim that all three films were faked, when a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation exists, is as ridiculous as claiming that the moon landings were faked.

Sandy writes: That's like asking "Why haven't any of these so-called expert astronomers answered some guy on Facebook who knows for a fact that the moon is made of green cheese? What are they hiding?" The very least you should do before making a comment like this is to look for the evidence you think is missing. As it turns out, we have indeed heard from "Z film experts", or at least one of them, about this issue. In a presentation to the Movie Machine Society in Toronto in 1998, Roland Zavada described the extent of the images between the sprocket holes: This presentation is easily found online. Here it is: http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm. This is one of a very informative series of articles about the Zapruder film's authenticity, which you can find here: http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm. Anyone who is even slightly tempted to believe that the Zapruder film has been faked should read these articles, as well as David Wrone's book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

If you think Trump is a nutcase, take a look at Eliot Weinberger's entertaining article, 'They could have picked ...', in the current issue of the London Review of Books: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/eliot-weinberger/they-could-have-picked

Michael has identified the fundamental problem with every claim that the Zapruder film was faked: And that's leaving aside the technical impossibility of copying Kodachrome images onto Kodachrome without generating obvious anomalies in grain, contrast and colour balance. Roland Zavada, whose credentials are exceptional, concluded in a report for the Assassination Records Review Board that the film that is claimed to be the original film from Zapruder's camera contains none of the imperfections that a copy must contain, and that it is indeed the original film from Zapruder's camera. Despite what the paranoid may want to believe, the Bad Guys are not omnipotent. They couldn't fake films just by snapping their fingers. Quite apart from the technical impossibilities, every specific claim of forgery fails for one of several straightforward reasons: "The film contradicts a witness statement!" Witnesses can be mistaken. Human memory is far from perfect. "The film contradicts an official document!" Official documents can contain inaccuracies, for innocent reasons or not so innocent reasons. "The film contains some object that shouldn't be there!" You're looking at a dodgy reproduction. When you copy an image enough times, anomalies are generated. To his credit, James Fetzer in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, the holy book of the alterationist cult, included an article by Zavada which points out that many so-called anomalies are simply due to the camera Zapruder was using. "Someone claimed to have seen a different version of the film!" See point 1 above. Assuming the person is honest, either they misremembered the details of what they saw, or they saw a reconstruction that differs in some way from the actual Zapruder film. "The Bad Guys faked the film in order to implicate Oswald as a lone gunman!" The film they are supposed to have faked does exactly the opposite of this. It contains plenty of evidence that more than one gunman was involved. Much of this evidence is found only in the Zapruder film. By dismissing the film as a fake, you are trying to weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. The methodology that's used in this thread seems to be especially bizarre. It's difficult to be certain when its proponents refuse to explain what the mathematical stuff is all about, but it looks as though the reasoning goes something like this: I've found an anomaly between what an official document or a witness statement claims and what we see in the Zapruder film. I'm so entranced by the idea of conspiracies that I'm going to ignore every obvious explanation for this anomaly. In fact, I'm probably not even aware that there is a straightforward explanation for the anomaly! I'm going to assume that what the anomaly depicts is what actually happened at this particular point during the assassination. By coming up with a mathematical formula, I can show that the anomaly may be consistent with what we might see in a film that has been manipulated in some far-fetched way, such as having frames removed or its speed changed. Therefore the Zapruder film is a fake and everything really is a conspiracy! As I wrote in post 316:

Thanks for your comments, Michael. I think it's very revealing that David has been reduced to throwing insults around: Personally, I think it is unwise for someone with Mr Josephs' written communication skills to ask "are you in 3rd grade?" He does get one thing right, though: That's what the 'Zapruder film is a fake' theory is: an article of faith. It is extremely implausible in principle, and there's no evidence to support it that doesn't crumble away on close inspection. The faithful believe it not because there's any good objective evidence to support it, but simply because it satisfies a believer's psychological need, in this case a paranoid need to see all-powerful Bad Guys everywhere.

Wow. I can almost see the steam rising from David Josephs' ears and swirling around his tin-foil hat. That wins the prize for non sequitur of the year. It's also uninformed. I told you in post 334 that there were hundreds of showings of bootleg copies of the Zapruder film prior to 1975. I suggest you read my post again, and follow the link to Professor Wrone's book on Amazon. Read the book; you'll learn a lot. One of the things you'll learn is that there were hundreds of showings of bootleg copies of the Zapruder film, as a film rather than as individual frames, before the first TV broadcast. I'm well aware that Time Inc played its part in keeping the film out of the public eye. This does not suggest that the film has been faked. It suggests that the film has not been faked. The film was clearly kept out of circulation because it appears to contain very strong evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis: the necessity for three shots to have been fired in under six seconds, Connally being shot after Kennedy had already been wounded, and a head shot from the front. The fact that the film as we know it contains this evidence shows that the film is extremely unlikely to have been faked, for the obvious reason that this evidence is precisely what any forgers would have wanted to conceal. This has been explained to you over and over again, but you show no signs that you have grasped this very simple point. Perhaps, though, the comical anger on display in your latest posts shows that you have grasped it, and it has made you realise the implausibility of this particular conspiracy theory. What? I pointed out in post 300 the places in the Zapruder film which seem to contain evidence that is consistent with at least four shots having been fired. That post, by the way, is the one in which I corrected David's claim that the Zapruder film shows evidence for no more than two shots. I'm not sure what David means by "impossible shot spacing" nor why I should produce evidence for it, since I've never claimed that any such thing exists. As far as I can tell, the Zapruder film's evidence for at least four shots is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics. Now let's look at the most interesting part of David's latest stream-of-consciousness rants: I mentioned in one or two earlier posts the stupidity of assuming that if an official document contradicts a film or photograph, it's the film or photograph that must be wrong, not the document. I speculated in post 334 that David had made this mistake with his incoherent comment about Connally being shot (or not shot; it's difficult to tell) at frames 242 or 264. Now he has given us proof that this really is how he thinks: a survey contradicts what we see in the Zapruder film, so it's the film that must be wrong! That was in post 336. In post 337 David makes the same mistake again: The relevant part of Commission Document 298 comprises photographs of the FBI's scale model of Dealey Plaza, and illustrates the FBI's interpretation of the shooting. Because someone placed a miniature car in the wrong position in the scale model, causing CD 298 to contradict the Zapruder film, it's the film that must be wrong! That's what this 23-page embarrassment of a thread boils down to: the cryptic mathematical equations are supposed to demonstrate the Zapruder film's inconsistency with various official documents and interpretations. And all the time, the only rational conclusion is that when there is a conflict, it is actually the official documents and interpretations that are wrong, not the Zapruder film.

Also from David's post 328: At least you've moved on from your claim that the film shows only two shots, which I took to pieces in post 300. I presume this is what you're suggesting: Several witnesses claimed that more than three shots were fired. Even in traumatic situations such as the JFK assassination, every witness's memory is perfect and remains so for decades after the event. The Zapruder film shows evidence of only three shots. Therefore the film must have been faked. As I pointed out in post 300, the film actually shows evidence that is consistent with at least four shots having been fired. You can't conclude from this that the film has been faked. The fact that this evidence contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis suggests strongly that the film hasn't been faked, for reasons I've given umpteen times already, though they don't seem to have sunk in yet. David makes a couple of points that have no obvious bearing on whether or not the Zapruder film has been faked: In other words, the lone-nut hypothesis was created out of political necessity. I'm aware of that; I wrote a book which deals with that, among other topics. But what has this to do with faking the Zapruder film? I'd guess the claim is that the need to portray Oswald as a lone nut forced the Bad Guys to alter the Zapruder film to conceal evidence of conspiracy. Here we go again: the film contains plenty of evidence which David thinks the Bad Guys must have removed from the film, and it contains next to no evidence of the sort we can expect the Bad Guys to have inserted into the film. Those incompetent Bad Guys! Whoa! I hope you aren't trying to revive the old body-alteration theory. That one's out there with 'Harvey and Lee' and 'the driver shot JFK'. Nurse! Fetch the big butterfly net! The final point I'd like to make here is that neither David nor Chris has yet bothered to explain in plain English exactly which frames they think are not authentic. If you're claiming that the film is not authentic, the first thing you really need to do is to identify the extent of the forgery. I can't say I blame them for wanting to avoid this question.

A couple of points from David's post 328: I think you mean that the film was not shown publicly for 12 more years. In fact, there were many unauthorised screenings of bootleg copies before the television broadcast in 1975. David Wrone, in The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination, points out that the Time-Life building's internal security was not strict, and that at the Clay Shaw trial "Garrison ... had bootleg copies made and distributed them to critics and universities. ... Mark Lane showed the film at his numerous lectures around the country ... a group of young critics called the Assassination Information Bureau promoted the film at hundreds of appearances on the college lecture circuit" (p.60). I'd very much recommend Professor Wrone's book to anyone with a genuine desire to find out whether or not the film is authentic. I'm not convinced that David and Chris are members of that group, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. More importantly, as Michael has pointed out several times, there is a very obvious reason for the authorities' reluctance to have the film seen by the public. It's because the film, which David imagines was altered to conceal evidence of more than one gunman, actually contains plenty of such evidence. The public's access to the film was restricted not because the film had been altered in some mysterious way, but precisely because it had not been altered. I can't tell whether this is a criticism or a challenge. I believe that Governor Connally was of the opinion that the Zapruder film showed him being shot somewhere around frame 238, so let's go with that until any better evidence turns up. I'm not sure where the choice of frames 242 or 264 comes from. I suspect it's from some official reconstruction, and that David's reasoning (if that's the right word to use) goes like this: Some official source claims that a shot was fired at frames 242 or 264. I can't see any evidence of a shot in these frames. The official source, being a Bad Guy, must have been infallible. Because the official source was infallible, it cannot have misinterpreted what it saw on the Zapruder film. Instead, the official source must have seen a different version of the Zapruder film. Therefore the Zapruder film as we know it is a fake. Duh!

One more curious claim in post 288: I'm not sure where David got that bit from. I've never claimed that because the film shows the authentic timing of the shots, the timing of the shots proves that the film is authentic, which is indeed a tautology. What I pointed out (in post 285, if you want to check) was that the timing of the relevant section of the Zapruder film, between frame 210 when JFK first becomes visible to the hypothetical lone gunman, and frame 312, the last frame before the head shot, restricts any reasonable timing of three shots to less than six seconds, and that this timing, set against the time taken to operate the rifle, makes the lone-nut hypothesis very improbable. In other words, if (note the word 'if' there) the Zapruder film as we know it is authentic, these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis. What this particular point has to do with the authenticity of the film should be obvious. These 103 frames form an item of inconvenient evidence which the Bad Guys rather stupidly forgot to remove when they were faking the film. If these 103 frames are authentic, why did the Bad Guys leave them in the film? Alternatively, if these 103 frames are not authentic, why did the Bad Guys place them in the film? The Zapruder film's timing of the car's progress down the road doesn't prove that the film is authentic, but it does have implications that make the claim of forgery very difficult to believe. Because this timing evidence is not found anywhere else in the photographic record, dismissing the film would weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. It's sad, but not surprising, that those on the moon-landings wing of the JFK debate don't seem to understand the implications of their irrational desire to see a conspiracy everywhere they look. Why should we even suspect that there is a problem with the timing shown in the Zapruder film? The only thing it contradicts is the timing that's implied in various official documents. No reasonable person would claim that just because something appears in an official document it must be correct. The obvious conclusion is that it's the official documents that are wrong, not the Zapruder film.

David's post 328 contains so many howlers it's difficult to know where to start. Let's begin with his failure to understand one simple point that I made in post 316. This is what I wrote: In reply, David wrote: Of course there is no genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis to conceal! That's exactly the point I was making! I'll try to spell it out more clearly: The Zapruder film as we know it contains evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis. If the film has been altered, this evidence must be fake, and the film can only realistically have been altered by inserting this fake evidence into the film. The film was never in the possession of anyone who would have done this. The Bad Guys would not realistically have inserted this evidence into the film. Therefore, the chance of the film having been altered is very close to zero. In other words, the fact that the film contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis indicates very, very strongly that it hasn't been altered. I suppose you could argue that the lapel flap in frame 224 was painted in, since this is the only evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis that the film actually contains. But then you're faced with the huge problem of explaining why the Bad Guys didn't bother to remove the much stronger evidence in the film that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis. I'll get around to answering David's other remarks in due course. I still haven't finished with his earlier post.

The Evidence in the Zapruder Film It was alleged in post 270 that the Zapruder film is "the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT." I pointed out in post 285 that the Zapruder film actually contains next to no evidence which implicates Oswald and supports the single-bullet theory, but it does contain much stronger evidence to the contrary: it seems to show that Connally was hit after Kennedy had already been hit, and that the head shot came from the front, and it necessitates the improbable claim that three shots were fired in less than six seconds. I pointed out that much of this evidence is found only in the Zapruder film. It was alleged in post 288 that because the Zapruder and Muchmore films contradict the accounts of several eye-witnesses, both films must have been altered. I pointed out in post 299 that when there is a conflict between an eye-witness and an item of photographic evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the witness must be mistaken, unless it has already been proven on other grounds that the photographic evidence is inauthentic, which certainly hasn't happened with the Zapruder film. Eye-witness evidence cannot be used to support the theory that the Zapruder film has been faked. It was alleged in post 288 that the Zapruder film does not contain evidence that more than three shots were fired, and that consequently the film must have been altered. I pointed out in post 300 that the film actually contains evidence consistent with at least four shots having been fired: yet another way in which the Zapruder film contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis. Consequences of Forgery The film as we know it clearly supports the proposition that more than one gunman was involved in the assassination. If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis and by creating fake evidence pointing to a conspiracy. This is, to put it mildly, not very likely. I've pointed out in several posts that no-one has yet identified a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic record that doesn't have a straightforward explanation. Consequently, if the Zapruder film was faked, much of the rest of the photographic record must have been faked too, a notion that is about as plausible as the moon landings having been faked (which at least one prominent 'Zapruder film is fake' enthusiast seems to have believed), or Elvis Presley being the gunman on the grassy knoll. Paranoid Fantasies What are we left with? That the Zapruder film contradicts the measurements and shooting sequences suggested by the FBI or the CIA or the Secret Service? I'm sure everyone can see the answer to that one: just as eye-witnesses can be unreliable, so can members of official agencies. Whether by accident or design, the agencies got some of their measurements and shooting sequences wrong. Big deal! With the realisation that the agencies were not infallible, the last surviving element of the case for forgery disappears in a puff of smoke. All these equations claiming that the limousine was 49' 3" north-south-west of the faked photo of Neil Armstrong at Robert West's hypotenuse of station 3.142, or whatever, are just hot air. It's like discussing how many angels you can fit on a pinhead, when you haven't yet produced a single piece of credible evidence that angels actually exist. I know what you're going to say: "But the Bad Guys can't make mistakes! They are all-powerful! I really like conspiracies! Please don't take my conspiracy away!" To which the obvious reply is that the Zapruder film provides plenty of evidence that more than one gunman took part in the assassination. That's your conspiracy, not some made-up nonsense about faked films. You can have one or the other, but not both. Winners and Losers Let's look at who benefits from this paranoid desire to construct imaginary conspiracies: If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are implying that evidence contradicting the lone-nut hypothesis should be discarded. Much of this evidence is found nowhere else. In whose interests would it be to discard this evidence? If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you're wasting your time on a nonsensical dead-end. Your time would surely be better spent doing something productive, such as criticising the lone-nut hypothesis on rational grounds. In whose interests is it to divert people away from making worthwhile criticisms of the lone-nut hypothesis? If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are reinforcing the public perception that everyone who criticises the lone-nut hypothesis is a tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid fantasist, and that the JFK assassination is not a subject worthy of serious discussion. Again, in whose interests is this?

Also in post 288, David writes: I've seen references here and there to the mysterious 'Hollywood 7' group of film experts who were supposed to be providing definitive proof that the Zapruder film has been faked, but I haven't yet found an account of their conclusions. David's comment implies that they have at last gone public with their proof. I'd like to examine their reasoning, but, unlike David, I haven't read their account. Could anyone point me towards this account, if it exists online?

Our resident 'Zapruder film is fake' enthusiasts have been remarkably unwilling to provide a clear description of exactly which parts of the film they consider to be fake. I get the impression that most of the contributors to James Fetzer's The Great Zapruder Film Hoax think that the entire thing is a fabrication. I've found some evidence which suggests that David, at least, agrees with them. In post 288, he writes As usual, he doesn't state specifically what he thinks the extent of the forgery is, but I think it's possible to work out what he's getting at: Marie Muchmore repeatedly said that she did not film the shooting. Her film shows the shooting. Therefore the images of the shooting must have been placed into the film by parties unknown for some undefined purpose. This isn't a matter of removing the occasional frame or applying a spot of coloured dye here and there. If you'll pardon the pun, it's Muchmore than that: the Bad Guys essentially fabricated the whole of the shooting sequence that we see on the film. If David considers the Muchmore film to be a complete fabrication, I'd guess he considers the Zapruder film to be a complete fabrication too. After all, if the Bad Guys had the ability to do one, they surely had the ability to do both. And since the Nix film agrees with the other two films, which we now know for a fact to be complete fabrications, the Bad Guys must have completely fabricated the Nix film too! At this point, everyone will be slapping their foreheads and wondering how on earth anyone could be so far removed from reality. If the three films depict the shooting sequence, and there are no obvious inconsistencies between them, the only rational conclusion is that what we see in the three films is what actually happened, and that Marie Muchmore, like Mary Moorman, simply misremembered what she had done during those traumatic few seconds. Incidentally, one inconsistency between the Nix and Zapruder films was suggested but then debunked in the comments section at http://jfkfacts.org/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/. Marie Muchmore's experiences are covered in chapter 7 of Richard Trask's excellent book, Pictures of the Pain. Trask found only one instance of her claim not to have filmed the shooting, in a brief report by the FBI agent Robert Basham on 4 December 1963. She was interviewed by the FBI again a couple of months later (see Commission Document 5, p.8), but did not mention anything about what she had, or had not, filmed. I suspect that the Bad Guys had got to her by then. Either that, or Commission Document 5 has been faked as well.

Michael, Thanks for the comments, and for communicating them clearly (I'll have a go at translating Mr Josephs' latest post into English when I have a couple of hours to spare). One small point - the car is supposed to have come into view from the sixth-floor window at frame 210, not frame 225. When I mentioned a shot sequence in post 300 I was just giving what I understand to be the standard interpretation of what the Zapruder film shows, which is obviously more shots than the two that are supposed to prove forgery (of course, even if the film did show evidence of only two shots, it still wouldn't prove forgery). Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about exactly how many shots there were, or when each of them was fired. Looking for that level of detail can become a dead end, though not as much of a dead end as looking for evidence that the Zapruder film was faked.