Dr. Costella's smoking gun:

[Paul Rigby]

Evan,

Do I at least get points for efficiency? After all, with one simple caveat I'm attacking an entire government agency !

Priceless!

[Charles Drago]

Evan,

Do I at least get points for efficiency? After all, with one simple caveat I'm attacking an entire government agency !

Yes indeed, you do.

Not interested in coming over to the 'dark side', are you? We can always use a man of your talents!

Herr Doktor Ken Rahn made the offer -- quite seriously and, dare I say it, conspiratorially -- years ago.

Thanks much, but I'll remain comfortably blinded by the light.

[David G. Healy]

Compare the writing skills of the "Colby" who manifests below with other, shall we say less impressive examples of "his" literary skills.

The typos and other minor failings on this page seem choreographed to balance otherwise well-developed and relatively complex sentence structures and narrative flow, sophistic though the latter surely is.

Artful, wouldn't you say?

Charles

By Mod (Burton): Charles, your 'warning' is considered to be a personal attack. Please do NOT use it.

Evan,

Do I at least get points for efficiency? After all, with one simple caveat I'm attacking an entire government agency !

What personal attack? A commentary on writing skills is not a personal attack, but a critique.

Jack

seems he has to make sure we (and the lurkers) notice he's around, sooner or later he'll post something worthwhile... got something to do with the uniform

[Len Colby]

"Colby" is clearly out of his element here. Later frames of the "Z film" show

the Curry lead car about to enter the underpass, and no sign of a motorcycle.

Also other images show the limo exiting the underpass, and no sign of a motorcycle.

So either the images are altered or the witnesses are all lying; take your pick.

Jack

Jack if you can find any frames from the end of the Z-film that show the lead car much clearer than the one below let us know. Chaney said that after talking to Chief Curry he went further forward to inform others

http://www.jfkchat.com/zapruder/z444.jpg

Funny that the self proclaimed photo analyst who:

- claimed a photo showed a jet engine from the WTC on 9/11 IN a trash can when it clearly showed an engine PART in front of the trash can

- totally misidentified the Pentagon’s impact point and

- though the WFC Winter Garden was a toppled over building etc etc

…would talk about others being 'out of their element'

The solution to this supposed conundrum is actually quite simple.

Yup: the film's a fake. As, of course, is any explanation, Len, which can't account for the footage shot from the opposite side of Elm. Angle of filmer's elevation explains Chaney's absence from Nix? Oh dear.

But, please, do crunch the numbers for Z. This should be a hoot!

Paul

You as opposed to Jack do have a point; Nix shows the x-100 till after Hill jumped on its trunk i.e. till after the point motorcycle cop possibly could have passed it under the FOV of Zapruder’s camera.

I have questions for you and the other alterationists:

When exactly do you think Chaney passed the limo? And

Why do you think the plotters would want to remove this?

Len

[Paul Rigby]

I have questions for you and the other alterationists:

When exactly do you think Chaney passed the limo?

He was in the process of passing the presidential limo in the Altgens photo. Chaney appears to have held his course and speed, as captured in the aforementioned: The presidential limo, by contrast, slowed and went left, towards the south curb of Elm, whereupon, according to eyewitnesses, it stopped; and a final shot was fired. Chaney, of course, drove straight on to the lead car.

And why do you think the plotters would want to remove this?

Removing Chaney was part of simplifying the falsification of the Z film. By removing from the shooting sequence the lower level of the first version – by first version I mean the one described by, for example, Dan Rather on CBS radio/TV on 25 November – the fabricators could concentrate on the middle and upper layers of it ie the presidential limo and the south curb, their occupants and dispositions in the course of the shooting. The decision to excise the lower level - in effect, the north curb and its occupants - from the film is strongly suggestive of the scale and complexity of the task, not to mention the time constraints, confronting the fabricators.

Second, any trace of Chaney passing the limo lent credence to both his own description of events, and any observations attributed to him like, say, those by Marion Baker; and those of corroborating witnesses.

Third, Chaney’s interposing himself between the north curb and presidential limo did little for the built-in fall-back position, the knoll.

Paul

[Kathleen Collins]

What a sad thread this is!

Except for the splice in the beginning , THE ZAPRUDER FILM WAS NOT ALTERED IN ANY WAY!

This ranks in the same category as Badgeman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjv59Xqlwds

Wim

What kind of a--h--- govt employee, knowing he's got the most historic film in the world, is going to make a mistake by splicing the Zapruder film? His head would roll too. It was done deliberately IMO.

Kathy

[Paul Rigby]

Removing Chaney was part of simplifying the falsification of the Z film...

For those interested in making the comparison for themselves between the Altgens photo in question*, and the Z frame – 255 - held to be the same instant in time only captured from the north pergola pedestal allegedly occupied by the dressmaker, there is no better place to turn than National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 2005), p.71. The Z frame is at the top of the page, Altgens’ immediately below.

*Strictly speaking, Altgens’ most famous photo of the assassination was, at most generous, his fourth photo of the motorcade. For an outstanding exposition of the issues surrounding attribution of photos to Altgens, see John Costella's essay, “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication,” within James H. Fetzer (Ed.) The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003), pp.199-206. As Costella notes, “Trask would have been a perfect addition to the staff of the Warren Commission!” (p.206).

[Charles Drago]

I have no doubt that the Z-film was altered by the killers of JFK.

Not primarily in an effort to excise visual proof of conspiracy, but rather to promote arguments for same.

The most obvious alterations -- the splices and missing frames -- were designed to be detected and subsequently to engender confusion, false mystery, and antagonisms within the research community that the conspirators knew would form in the wake of their unmistakably conspiratorial deed.

I would argue that, on balance, honorable alterationists inadvertantly have done severe damage to our cause.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Charles Drago

[David G. Healy]

I have no doubt that the Z-film was altered by the killers of JFK.

Not primarily in an effort to excise visual proof of conspiracy, but rather to promote arguments for same.

The most obvious alterations -- the splices and missing frames -- were designed to be detected and subsequently to engender confusion, false mystery, and antagonisms within the research community that the conspirators knew would form in the wake of their unmistakably conspiratorial deed.

I would argue that, on balance, honorable alterationists inadvertantly have done severe damage to our cause.

photo and film alterationists have sparked latter-day JFK assassination debate for quite awhile now, in fact those early day film-photo debates got this board of the ground... if thats sever damage, its worth it, the JFK movie debates had long since passed....

[Bill Miller]

Good question. Two motorcycles perhaps.....

Craig, if you start using sound reasoning and good judgment when looking more closely at these images, then you are going to take all the fun out of these guys game of 'where's waldo'. And then when a few others have made the same mistake at reading the image as Jack, then they will ignore the shadows because they believe that the more who can get it wrong will somehow make it right - If you know what I mean!

It wasn't that long ago that the assassination films were run in sync with one another, this showed once and for all that the films matched. So rather than draw on that knowledge ... they quickly glance at an image and miss two motorcycles which then leads to another half-baked alteration claim.

[Paul Rigby]

I have no doubt that the Z-film was altered by the killers of JFK.

Not primarily in an effort to excise visual proof of conspiracy, but rather to promote arguments for same.

The most obvious alterations -- the splices and missing frames -- were designed to be detected and subsequently to engender confusion, false mystery, and antagonisms within the research community that the conspirators knew would form in the wake of their unmistakably conspiratorial deed.

I would argue that, on balance, honorable alterationists inadvertantly have done severe damage to our cause.

Charles,

I can't speak for "honourable alterationists" - good grief, what a Miltonian burden that imposes upon the poor souls* - but only for myself, a thoroughly dishonourable one. And, unsurprisingly, I couldn't disagree with you more. Would you have us cohere round a politico-literary fiction? Of course not. So why so around a series of mutually reinforcing celluloid ones?

As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.

Paul

*"Those who would be free must first be wise and good." Hell, that means eternal tyranny for the overwhelming majority of humanity!

[Bill Miller]

photo and film alterationists have sparked latter-day JFK assassination debate for quite awhile now, in fact those early day film-photo debates got this board of the ground... if thats sever damage, its worth it, the JFK movie debates had long since passed....

The alteration claims did nothing for the forums than to turn them into the Internet's version of 'The Jerry Springer Show'. These guys probably stand in front of the mirror for extended periods of time while thinking they are looking at some new guy through a window. As far as the debate on alteration ... even you (David) had said long after the book came out with Costella's mistakes in it ... that you had not seen any signs of alteration. Looks like you and I, Lamson, Len, Mack and etc., all agreed on that one.

[Charles Drago]

I have no doubt that the Z-film was altered by the killers of JFK.

Not primarily in an effort to excise visual proof of conspiracy, but rather to promote arguments for same.

The most obvious alterations -- the splices and missing frames -- were designed to be detected and subsequently to engender confusion, false mystery, and antagonisms within the research community that the conspirators knew would form in the wake of their unmistakably conspiratorial deed.

I would argue that, on balance, honorable alterationists inadvertantly have done severe damage to our cause.

Charles,

I can't speak for "honourable alterationists" - good grief, what a Miltonian burden that imposes upon the poor souls* - but only for myself, a thoroughly dishonourable one. And, unsurprisingly, I couldn't disagree with you more. Would you have us cohere round a politico-literary fiction? Of course not. So why so around a series of mutually reinforcing celluloid ones?

As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.

Paul

*"Those who would be free must first be wise and good." Hell, that means eternal tyranny for the overwhelming majority of humanity!

Paul,

It's so refreshing to disagree with a brother-in-arms. It restores my faith in the postive power of diversity.

I won't take umbrage at your implication that I am not among those whom you describe as desiring truth and justice in this case. Nor shall I take you to task for missing/ignoring the nuances of my initial post.

We have bigger fish to fry.

I neither wrote nor otherwise claim that "alteration of the Z-film [was] not ... undertaken 'to excise visual proof of conspiracy.'"

I DID write "not primarily" to accomplish that task.

Therein lies a tale, my friend.

Sufficient proof exists separate and distinct from the Z-film to prove conspiracy.

Alteration of the Z-film goes to the identities of the conspirators.

A subtle distinction? Perhaps. You miss or ignore it at the perils of truth and justice.

Think about it and get back to me.

[Bill Miller]

As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.

Paul

LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.

Paul

LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist.

That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion....

edit--objectionable phrase

Edited February 4, 2008 by Kathy Beckett