Jeremy Bojczuk

If you folks are silly enough to vote this nutcase in as President, you deserve everything you get. God help us all.

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:

back in the mid 80s when Hollywood still didn't have digital technology (it was slowly coming around though) and there I was, watching the 8mm strip I shot through an enlarged magnifying glass, cranking the film until I found what I needed, cutting it, and then splicing it together.

And then here, we're expected to believe that they grabbed the film from Zapruder, went through it, and did all manner of editing, splicing, eliminating, and adding when they didn't even know that early in the game what they were looking for?

It's just so silly...so ridiculous.

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:

1. "The film contradicts a witness statement!" Witnesses can be mistaken. Human memory is far from perfect.
2. "The film contradicts an official document!" Official documents can contain inaccuracies, for innocent reasons or not so innocent reasons.
3. "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.
4. "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.
5. "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:

1. I've found an anomaly between what an official document or a witness statement claims and what we see in the Zapruder film.
2. I'm so entranced by the idea of conspiracies that I'm going to ignore every obvious explanation for this anomaly.
3. In fact, I'm probably not even aware that there is a straightforward explanation for the anomaly!
4. I'm going to assume that what the anomaly depicts is what actually happened at this particular point during the assassination.
5. 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.
6. Therefore the Zapruder film is a fake and everything really is a conspiracy!

As I wrote in post 316:

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.

Thanks for your comments, Michael.

I think it's very revealing that David has been reduced to throwing insults around:

blow is [sic] out your A$$ Michael.

STFU

your trolling BS

cointelpro tactics

What are you in 3rd grade?

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:

Can't discuss logic and analysis with a person of Faith.

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.

You write above (y'know, in case you forget where and what you write) : these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Who outside the FBI, CIA & SS sees this film prior to 1975, as a film, not as individual frames ?.

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.

Too bad it has not yet dawned on you that LIFE was part of charade to remove the film from circulation - NOT to exploit it's ownership licenses or right other than to place individual frames - in the wrong order - in their magazine in the issues following the 22nd.

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.

can you simply post the frames in which you see evidence of multiple shots or impossible shot spacing... or not?

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:

The original survey has the 207-208 distance at 2.3 feet, in one frame. That's almost 29mph JB. So it was changed to 207-210...3 frames at .8' each is about 9.5mph for the WCR CE884.

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:

And finally we have all of WCD298 describing along with a number of other exhibits placing a shot 40 feet further down Elm than Z313

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:

I wonder how a film of an event with so many closest to the limo claiming there were more than 3 shots, and the evidence we have proving there were more than three shots - can be made to show only 3 and no more????

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:

1. Several witnesses claimed that more than three shots were fired.
2. Even in traumatic situations such as the JFK assassination, every witness's memory is perfect and remains so for decades after the event.
3. The Zapruder film shows evidence of only three shots.
4. 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:

By mid afternoon on Nov 22 the "Castro Conspiracy to kill JFK" had been abandoned (as expected since it was simply for leverage) and Oswald the Lone Nut is born.

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!

The entire process at Bethesda is to change the evidence from a shot to the temple blowing out the back of the head to a shot to the back of the head blowing out the Temple. Here is JFK with overlays of his intact skull and what Bethesda tried to tell us...

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:

The film was not shown publically for 13 more years.

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.

Both JFK and JC are shot in the back before the head shot... 3 shots - 3 hits (Have you found the JC shot yet? Z242 or z264?)

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:

1. Some official source claims that a shot was fired at frames 242 or 264.
2. I can't see any evidence of a shot in these frames.
3. The official source, being a Bad Guy, must have been infallible.
4. Because the official source was infallible, it cannot have misinterpreted what it saw on the Zapruder film.
5. Instead, the official source must have seen a different version of the Zapruder film.
6. Therefore the Zapruder film as we know it is a fake.

Duh!

One more curious claim in post 288:

for you to accept the Zfilm as a clock of the assassination you MUST assume it is authentic - one does not prove the other and nothing can negate your conclusion... that's a tautology JB, - "the film shows the authentic timing of the shots" & "the timing of the shots shown on this film is authentic" therefore by axiomatic rule the film must be authentic.

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:

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.

In reply, David wrote:

There is no "genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis" to conceal.... and why, if it supported the LNT would they remove or conceal evidence favorable to a lone gunman from the rear? What evidence would that be Jeremy?

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:

1. The Zapruder film as we know it contains evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.
2. 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.
3. The film was never in the possession of anyone who would have done this.
4. The Bad Guys would not realistically have inserted this evidence into the film.
5. 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:

Horne's famous "Hollywood 7" have seen the best version of the film, a 35mm frame by frame copy from which they state that this black square appears to hover over the frame.

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

You've seen the Muchmore film right? You aware that repeatedly she says she simply did not film the shooting part of the assassination ... The person credited with the film says she did not take it. Yet as we both know the Muchmore frames are amazingly clear and focused on JFK.

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:

1. Marie Muchmore repeatedly said that she did not film the shooting.
2. Her film shows the shooting.
3. 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.

However, I don't agree with you on the shot sequence. Watch the film - shot #1 is to the throat; #2 is in the back; #3 is Connally; #4 and #5 are JFK's kill shots.

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.

I've just read through your reply again, and one more point stands out. You write:

If there were more than 3 shots - which even Mike sees - then the film cannot be an accurate representation of the timing of the shots since only 1 is seen with any certainty while a 2nd can only be inferred. If there were more than 3 shots, and the film doesn't show this - how can it be authentic?

The standard interpretation is that the film contains evidence for at least three shots:

1. Kennedy is clearly reacting to at least one shot as he emerges from behind the road sign at frames 224 onward;
2. The obvious head shot at frame 313;
3. 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.

For the record, the alleged Z-film is altered, frames were removed (film break LIFE, Chicago) and Z-frames were transposed (per JEH-FBI).

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.

[The Zapruder film is] the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT.

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 entire argument is presented in this thread

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.

you barged into the conversation

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?

"I think what you, Chris and others are doing with this post is truly shameful. I come here to learn new things about this case but this thread is a perfect example of why the outside world laughs at us and calls us kooks, crackpots, and bat-$%^& loons."

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

Andrej,

FWIW, I also believe Altgen 6 has been altered. Even though it was released early and would have had to be altered quickly, I still believe it was altered. It's hard to believe that officials would release a photo that needed altering, but I still believe it's been altered.

I believe it's been altered because:

1. Lovelady's right shoulder is not all there. It simply doesn't look right.
2. Regarding the fellow with the tie standing behind and to Lovelady's right, it very much appears that his image has been pasted there. Parts of him appear to be covering parts of Lovelady, like Lovelady's shoulder and even part of his cheek. Lovelady's left cheek shouldn't have a darker, shadow-like area there. (Nor a bright white area, which is also what I see on the Altgen6 I have. Not sure it's on all Altgen 6s.)
3. So it looks like the guy's image was pasted there, and then someone attempted to blend it in with a pencil. I've seen similar things like this done before. It's pre-photoshop "technology."

Of course, if the image of the man was pasted there, there had to have been a reason for doing so. What I've wondered is if Prayer Man could be Oswald, and if Oswald may have been visible in Altgen 6 to the side and behind Lovelady. If so, PM would have had to have been near the center of the entrance-way at that time Altgen 6 was shot.

Anyway, I thought I'd mention this. If for no other reason than to give you encouragement on your Altgen 6 work.

Good luck!

"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.

D. Caddy is convinced of what Howard Hunt told him in the 70ties: that JFK was killed because he gave away the US-Alien-Secrets to Chairman Khrushchev...he is here to promote this childish idea in one way or another...

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.

Well, Ernie, with regard to the minor inconsistencies in my internet postings, I sometimes improvise when I'm in a hurry.

"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