Denise Hazelwood

Cowlick vs. EOP? If you think "cowlick," then you must also think the three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, Finck) were just wrong about the bullet entrance to the back of Kennedy's head being near the EOP. If you think "EOP," then you must also agree that the Zapruder film is not authentic, because if you use the WC's entrance and exit points, the shot would have had an upward trajectory for the Zapruder film to be authentic (since when you rotate the Warren Commission's head trajectory to match Kennedy's head position in Z312, the EOP-->exit would have had an upward trajectory--which makes no sense--and also a slightly left-to-right trajectory, which does not match a shot from the TSBD). To illustrate (You'll have to click on the link because I don't have the file space to post the .jpeg image): https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/wc-eop-trajectory-vs-z-film.html So which is it? Is it the EOP, or the cowlick? Or do you have another explanation for the apparent upward trajectory from the EOP entry? Please answer in the poll (names public).

I am not sure but it could be that the window is pushed up so that it is even with the frame of the pane on the other side of the pane with the hole. There is also the very interesting area of apparent damage above and to the right of the mark by the finger.

Well I don’t know that Costella ever had anything to say about Moorman on the street, but that is not mentioned in any of his proofs on his website. In any case, she herself has said that she stepped onto the street in at least one early interview, but in others (possibly after the Z film became more known) she said that she “stepped up to the curb.” By the Altgens 6 photo, I would say that she was in the street, based on the way her shadow is seen. But that’s a separate argument.

The 2 craiglamson links deal with only one of Costella’s multiple “proofs.” IF he made a mistake with the straightness issue of the lamppost, the craiglamson response does not affect the others. I will contact Costella to see what he says. But there are still his other separate “proofs” that are not addressed in these articles. Until such time as they are addressed, his work is not “thoroughly debunked,” but perhaps this one aspect might be. In the meantime I warn against throwing the baby out with the bath water. Your “here” link refers to the Moorman photo, not the Z-film. To me, the issue has never been whether Moorman took the photo (she indicated that she did from Day 1) but whether she was standing in the street when she took it. But that is a whole separate issue.

Well, Nix himself said to Mark Lane that some frames were “missing” from his film, and some were “ruined.” So whether a copy of the film was made before the frames were cut or ruined is an open question, in my book.

I contend that you are wrong on all of the above. However, if you can point me to the source that Costella’s Z-film work has been “thoroughly debunked,” I will certainly take a look at it. Specifically the Z-film. I don’t care about the rain sensors thing or the fact that his work was published in a book edited by Fetzer.

Then why did Brugioni describe the head shot as different? Why would Dan Rather have described JFK as moving “violently forward”? How would John Costella be able to prove alterations with his examples? And why on Earth would anyone think Z190 was the “throat” shot? (BTW, the “undamaged” versions don’t have the sprocket areas. Guess who would have appeared in the sprocket images? George Hickey. These copies also have the same other splices that the “original” film has. It took me a long time to reach the conclusion that the Z-film is an altered product, but I did reach it eventually.

That same document, if you scroll through it (e.g., pp. 16-17) shows Z190 as the “throat” shot. In the extant film, Z190 is very blurry. But if you look at the frames before and after, there seems to be very little difference. Both before and after there’s no sense of JFK’s tie, and his shirt looks extraordinarily white. I don’t know what version of the film they were looking at, but it wasn’t the extant version.

If you want to see evidence of the CIA's involvement in a "benign conspiracy," along with evidence of a cooperative "Agreement Between CIA and Secret Service" that was triggered by "the death of a President," you can find it on my website at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/cia-documents.html. You can also see the "CIA Dispatch" wherein the agency told its assets how to deal with critics of the Warren Report and where the weaponization of the term "Conspiracy Theorist" originated. (Thank you, Dr. Mantik, for pointing me to that "Dispatch" document. The others I found on my own.) These documents are presented for you here, in one place, so you don't have to go digging for them yourself--and let me tell you, that CIA online "Reading Room" is not easy to navigate, although it is less daunting than the Archives website. If you have any documents to add, please do not hesitate to share on this forum, and a heads-up message to me would not be amiss.

I’m not sure that Costella ever gave a time frame for the film’s alteration. At any rate, there’s no reason why the film can’t have undergone a major alteration over that first Sunday/Monday, with some additional tweaking as problems arose, like the shadow mentioned by David Lifton, or whatever. Not really. They both concluded that the film was fake. Their differences were only in the time frame for the alterations. But you do point out correctly that once a frame was published in Life, it was pretty much “frozen” as far as farther alterations to that frame, which means that they were probably stuck with some of the timing issues, like the too-fast head turns, etc. that may have been noticed later. But when they both concluded that the film is fake, even though that conclusion was based on different reasons, that is worth noting. Costella’s conclusion is based on the technical aspects of the film. Horne’s conclusion is based on the accounts of those who worked on two different versions of the film at NPIC. There’s really nothing contradictory about their reasons.

I hope you are wrong. But even the release of the Jackie Kennedy/WIlliam Manchester tapes would be helpful. Why isn't that information, specifically relevant to the book The Death of a President classified as part of the JFK records? Nobody--and I mean nobody--thnks that Caroline had anything to do with her father's death, so why wouldn't those tapes be released?

Well, I probably shouldn't post on the RFK1A because I haven't studied it in depth the same way I have the JFKA. However, I do know that the "Cesar accidental shooting" is a theory, and given what I know about the JFKA cover-up of the SS accident, it makes sense to me that something similar could happen in the RFK1A. But it would only take 1 shot from Cesar to make a cover-up desirous. Again, I haven't yet p ut the effort into studying the RFK1A, so I'll stop now...

After recently checking out his website, he (eventually) concluded that the film is entirely fake. I suggest that you read both Horne's article on "Two NPIC Events" (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/) and Costella's work at https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/ and read the individual "proofs" he enumerates. I also recommend my own article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html (I recently updated to include the anomalies of "Disappearing Clint Hill and Jumping Lamp Post" and "Zombie JFK Rising in his Seat" and the "Limousine Flag in Front of the Bystander's Hand" I thought I had already included previously but apparently not.) But the Horne article concerns "Two NPIC Events" that occurred the first weekend, not "a few weeks later." Importantly, the second event occurred the same day Oswald was killed, and it was known that there would be no trial. Briefing boards had already been made of "key" frames in the Friday/Saturday Brugioni event, which surely included the frames where Kennedy and Connally had been shot. Also importantly, the copy of the Z film that the SS had received from Zapruder was an 8mm slit film. And why on Earth would SS need to go to the CIA's Hawkeye Works lab with a film--except for purposes of alteration? The Sunday/Monday NPIC event concerned a 16mm unslit film masquerading as an "out of camera original." The only explanation is a flawed attempt to pretend that this was the "original" Zapruder film.

I'm not interested in his "rain sensors" stories, but in his Zapruder film work. If you have information to "authoritatively debunk" his optical analysis, please post it, as I would like to see it. Anomaly spotting is something that I have personally argued with Costella about. He considered at one time many of the "anomalies" to be the product of "motion blur" or some such. He used to say that "most" of the Zapruder film was "genuine" (by which I think he meant that he couldn't personally "prove" alteration beyond his enumerated proofs, not as an authoritative statement that most of it was unaltered). He seems to have changed his tune, because that statement that "most" of the film is "genuine" no longer appears on his website. Instead, he says that the whole thing is altered. I take Costella to be extremely cautious about asserting alteration, but has finally come to realize that the whole thing is unreliable. He does not discuss what changed his mind, however. (I like to think it was my phone call with him.) Anomaly spotting does contribute to the body of knowledge of alteration. The "jumping lamp post"? Or "Zombie JFK Rising from the Dead"? Or JFK's left arm being too long as it rises into the "chest-grab"? Or the impossibly fast head turns and body repositioning? I call these "anomalies," but they are all indicators of alteration.

This had to be a targeted robbery with someone on the inside involved. No ordinary thief is after picture negatives. The thief had to know what the courtier was carrying and how to expect him—and what the films likely showed. More cover up, possibly of Cesar accidentally shooting RFK. Does this sort of nonsense never end?