Jump to content
The Education Forum

OK Then...What Evidence is NOT Tainted?


Mark Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

Over the past few weeks, I've read all the posts discrediting this evidence and that evidence, and this witness and that witness, this photo and that photo. SO...besides the suit the JFK was wearing, is there ANY evidence in this case which is considered by all to be 100% reliable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Over the past few weeks, I've read all the posts discrediting this evidence and that evidence, and this witness and that witness, this photo and that photo. SO...besides the suit the JFK was wearing, is there ANY evidence in this case which is considered by all to be 100% reliable?

You know Mark,

I've been asking myself the same question in reading Doug Horne.

Josiah Thompson said it earlier when he wrote, \"It seems to me that at one's most extreme hazard does one move to the postion of saying that any government investigator lied about evidence,

lied about what the evidence was, or fiddled the evidence. For example I think one of the strongest indications of the impact of a bullet from behind...And incidentally seems to me there is much

more evidence of the impact of a bullet from the front on the President's head then there is of one from behind....."

(Thompson then mentions the fragments "ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle" found in the front seat of the limousine) "....And critics have suggested this -- that these fragments were planted by governmental agents since the car was in government hands after the assassination. This throws.... to suggest this sort of thing throws the whole investigation into paralysis it seems to me. Because at that point it becomes impossible to disjoin the good evidence, the clean evidence, from the dirty evidence. In otherwords, one has, then, no longer any criteria for distinguishing between evidence one wants to base conclusions on, and evidence which one wants to throw away as false trails.

And, it seems to me, that a logical consequence of doing that at any point in the study of this whole case is to announce that one has ended one's study. Because logically, one can't proceed any farther."

Farther. That's where I want to go, but if you start with this one fact: Oswald was seen through the window of the door to the vestibule of the second floor lunchroom by a DPD officer less than two minutes after the assassination, so if he was the gunman in the Sixth Floor Sniper's nest, he must have hustled down there pretty fast, and when the scene is explored further it is proof that he was not on the Sixth Floor at the time of the shooting and therefore was framed as the Patsy.

In addition, if you take seriously the report by Dallas court clerk who witnessed the assassination from the court house across the street and then, four to five minutes after the assassination saw a man in the sixth floor sniper's window - then who was that if not the real assassin?

And taking that fact in with the two photos of the sniper's window taken within a minute apart you know that whoever that was in the window was moving the boxes around, as can be seen by comparing the two photos.

So that convinces me that Oswald was not the sixth floor sniper and that someone else stuck around and moved the boxes around up to five minutes after the assassination - and must have either been the real assassin or an acomplace.

And with the fact that the shells were picked up before they were photographed and rethrown back down on the floor tells me that from the top of the DPD leadership they were not going to take the evidence seriously.

So now you have a framed Patsy and a real suspect that got away, and a rifle that implicates the Patsy and shells that were thrown down by the top cop, and a sniper's nest crime scene that was tampered with between the time of the crime and the time it was secured by the police, and what do you have?

Now Doug Horne provides a unique way to plough through all of this, because he maintains that who ever killed JFK, and thus framed Oswald, also controlled the body, AF1, the autopsy and the Zapruder film, as well as the official investigation, so there's a path that can be followed.

And if Doug Horne is right, then those who destroyed or manufactured the evidence also killed JFK.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
Over the past few weeks, I've read all the posts discrediting this evidence and that evidence, and this witness and that witness, this photo and that photo. SO...besides the suit the JFK was wearing, is there ANY evidence in this case which is considered by all to be 100% reliable?

As far as the "evidence" and conclusions related to the autopsy of JFK, as in the two other examples of major investigative reports emanating from the US Navy, I've just described in a post on another thread, the answer to your question, as in the reports of the other two investigations, is, who knows?

The prosecutor of Scooter Libby aptly described the phenomena for what is represented in the Navy files on the JFK autopsy, the Willcutts report on the suspicious death of James Forrestal, and the 2006 report of the near simultaneous "sucides" of three Gitmo prisioners.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics...?pagewanted=all

.... Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.....

The thugs who own our government keep doing it this way because it works for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just expressing my frustration here. But if Fetzer is right, if Jack White is right, if NONE of the evidence [except JFK's suit] is what it appears to be...then perhaps it's time for someone to step up and, rather than concentrating on impeaching ALL the evidence [except JFK's suit], maybe these "super sleuths" can tell us exactly what DID happen..in what exact sequence...and who did what, when, and why.

If we impeach ALL the evidence...what are we left with? The "certainty" that we can never know the truth? It sure seems as if that's the direction that Fetzer, et al, are directing things. And if we can never get to the bottom of the crime, then the study of the JFK assassination certainly HAS become nothing more than a parlor game; a pastime without a purpose.

Is that where we really want to end up?

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just expressing my frustration here. But if Fetzer is right, if Jack White is right, if NONE of the evidence [except JFK's suit] is what it appears to be...then perhaps it's time for someone to step up and, rather than concentrating on impeaching ALL the evidence [except JFK's suit], maybe these "super sleuths" can tell us exactly what DID happen..in what exact sequence...and who did what, when, and why.

If we impeach ALL the evidence...what are we left with? The "certainty" that we can never know the truth? It sure seems as if that's the direction that Fetzer, et al, are directing things. And if we can never get to the bottom of the crime, then the study of the JFK assassination certainly HAS become nothing more than a parlor game; a pastime without a purpose.

Is that where we really want to end up?

It is instructive to start with the conclusion and work back through the evidence

to see whether each piece of evidence regarding suspects of the crime or coverup.

The CONCLUSION (suspects):

The plotters were LBJ (and his personal cronies, including Connally)

J. Edgar Hoover

-- FBI

Allen Dulles and CIA

--E. Howard Hunt

--David Atlee Phillips

--George Herbert Walker Bush

--Others

Secret Service, Rowley

--Kellerman

--Greer

--Others

Joint Chiefs

--Navy

--Air Force

--Army

Military-Industrial/Oil/Political/Banking

--H.L. Hunt and oil men

--Richard Nixon

--David Rockefeller

--Military hardware contractors

Now, work backward from these suspects looking for evidence pointing at

each suspect. You will find direct evidence to all.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a devastatingly simple point, Mark.

If the alterationist position is correct... that is, if all the photos and films from Dealey Plaza are deemed to be fakes... what do we have left? Physical evidence like bullet fragments, holes in clothing, lead smears on the inside of the windshield? But all of this physical evidence was collected by government agents and in government custody. If the film evidence from Dealey Plaza (including films the FBI never heard of until after they had been shown on TV) is deemed suspect, then the physical evidence is even more suspect. What does that leave you with? Eyewitness testimony. But empirical studies by Elizabeth Loftus have pointed out again and again that almost every factor that degrades the reliability of eyewitness testimony was present in Dealey Plaza. That is why the eyewitness testimony we have is contradictory and malleable over time.

The truth is that if the alterationists have their wish they will have destroyed the ability to offer any founded opinions about the Kennedy assassination. If it is true that government agents were involved in the assassination, then the alterationists will have achieved the final government cover-up. Oddly enough, then, the alterationist position is then disclosed for what it is... the "final solution" of obstructionism.

The reality, of course, is quite different. For four decades, we have relied on the amazing good fortune that Abe Zapruder climbed up on that pedestal and that Mary Moorman shot her Polaroid, to anchor what we were saying about Dealey Plaza. The photo evidence properly has beer the armature we used to build an understanding of what happened there. The alterationists have tried for almost twenty years now to make their claim through a series of arguments about anomalies... that is, discrepancies between the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony or other films. After nearly two decades of trying, not a single argument stands up. "Anomaly" after "anomaly" have been offered and then explained innocently.

It is simply not true that the FBI was even very interested in film evidence of the assassination. Another thread has shown how they came tardy to the Muchmore film after it had been acquired by a news service and shown on TV. The Moorman photo was put out on a wire service within an hour or so of the shooting, long before it even came to the FBI's attention. The FBI sent an agent to one photo lab in the Dallas area and that was for about a week. The other two labs (including the Kodak lab) contented themselves with sending out a notice with processed film asking the person to contact the FBI if their film was of the assassination. Given such a loose hold on the film and photo evidence, it would have been madness to try to fake something up. Why? Because the other films... those undiscovered, those viewed and then returned to their owners, those processed in other cities, those put away and only processed much later... would make the fake film stand out.

After all the angry words, the evidentiary situation remains unchanged.

Josiah Thompson

I guess I'm just expressing my frustration here. But if Fetzer is right, if Jack White is right, if NONE of the evidence [except JFK's suit] is what it appears to be...then perhaps it's time for someone to step up and, rather than concentrating on impeaching ALL the evidence [except JFK's suit], maybe these "super sleuths" can tell us exactly what DID happen..in what exact sequence...and who did what, when, and why.

If we impeach ALL the evidence...what are we left with? The "certainty" that we can never know the truth? It sure seems as if that's the direction that Fetzer, et al, are directing things. And if we can never get to the bottom of the crime, then the study of the JFK assassination certainly HAS become nothing more than a parlor game; a pastime without a purpose.

Is that where we really want to end up?

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

You ask a logical question. I think that many of us came to a firm belief in conspiracy because of all the lost, damaged, missing and unwanted evidence. There is indeed reasonable doubt about every piece of the "evidence" used against Oswald. The alleged murder weapon is tainted in every way; the only legal documentation regarding its discovery identifies it as a completely different rifle and the entire ordering process, from Klein's ad to the specifics of the p.o. box and the Hidell alias itself, is shrouded in doubt. The same thing can be said about the pistol allegedly used to kill officer Tippit, as well as the ammunition for both weapons.

We DO know a few important things, and nothing can taint that. First, as Cliff points out regularly, JFK's real clothing exists in the record, and the bullet hole in the back of both shirt and coat are far too low to have exited from the throat. We also have the real alleged bullet- CE399- which the authorities claim caused 7 wounds. The condition of said bullet, combined with the government's own photos of identical test bullets, prove conclusively that this bullet could not have done what it is alleged to have done. What we can see in all the available films from that day reveal a total lack of response on the part of JFK's Secret Service detail. Perhaps they edited out even more damaging things, but we can still see that in Zapruder, Altgens, etc. These few items alone prove conspiracy and destroy the official lone assassin fairy tale.

Obviously, there is far more evidence tainted than not in this case. There is nothing we can do about that at this point. Private citizens didn't "lose" the President's brain, for instance. We didn't move or destroy the Stemmons Freeway sign. We didn't foul up the chain of possession on every piece of "evidence" said to implicate Oswald. We didn't tamper with the crime scene- which was the limousine. We didn't "mistakenly" identify the Mannlicher Carcano as a German Mauser, and sign a sworn affidavit to that effect. We didn't conduct an autopsy that was, in the words of Harold Weisberg, "unworthy of a bowery bum." Of course, we know some of the identities of those who did these things, and they should have been questioned intensively at the time. Had there been a real investigation into the assassination, they undoubtedly would have. If the Zapruder film was altered, that will be just another crucial piece of evidence against somebody, but we will probably never be certain of the exact perpetrators.

I hope you don't mean to infer that some of us- especially the dreaded alterationists- are claiming everything is tainted, and that somehow that discredits the suggestion that anything was tainted. Clearly, so much was tainted that it's hard to blame researchers for finding alteration or fabrication everywhere. The autopsy photos and x-rays, for instance, are tainted from the get go because we know how shoddy and incomplete the autopsy was. The fact that they contradict what all the medical personnel in Dallas said about the head wound leads us to conclude that either all those doctors and lawyers were identically mistaken, or the photos and x-rays are not legitimate.

Governor's Connally's clothing- which was part of the evidence in this case- was unquestionably tainted by the fact it was laundered and then eventually found in the possession of Rep. Henry Gonzalez. All of Oswald's alleged comments during his interrogation sessions are tainted, because they weren't recorded. Who knows what he really said? In a broad sense, there are few things connected to this case that weren't tainted somehow.

I'd like to ask another pertinent question. This would be perfect for Josiah and other anti-alterationists. Exactly what evidence, in your view, was tainted? It will be interesting to hear your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

You ask a logical question. I think that many of us came to a firm belief in conspiracy because of all the lost, damaged, missing and unwanted evidence. There is indeed reasonable doubt about every piece of the "evidence" used against Oswald. The alleged murder weapon is tainted in every way; the only legal documentation regarding its discovery identifies it as a completely different rifle and the entire ordering process, from Klein's ad to the specifics of the p.o. box and the Hidell alias itself, is shrouded in doubt. The same thing can be said about the pistol allegedly used to kill officer Tippit, as well as the ammunition for both weapons.

We DO know a few important things, and nothing can taint that. First, as Cliff points out regularly, JFK's real clothing exists in the record, and the bullet hole in the back of both shirt and coat are far too low to have exited from the throat. We also have the real alleged bullet- CE399- which the authorities claim caused 7 wounds. The condition of said bullet, combined with the government's own photos of identical test bullets, prove conclusively that this bullet could not have done what it is alleged to have done. What we can see in all the available films from that day reveal a total lack of response on the part of JFK's Secret Service detail. Perhaps they edited out even more damaging things, but we can still see that in Zapruder, Altgens, etc. These few items alone prove conspiracy and destroy the official lone assassin fairy tale.

Obviously, there is far more evidence tainted than not in this case. There is nothing we can do about that at this point. Private citizens didn't "lose" the President's brain, for instance. We didn't move or destroy the Stemmons Freeway sign. We didn't foul up the chain of possession on every piece of "evidence" said to implicate Oswald. We didn't tamper with the crime scene- which was the limousine. We didn't "mistakenly" identify the Mannlicher Carcano as a German Mauser, and sign a sworn affidavit to that effect. We didn't conduct an autopsy that was, in the words of Harold Weisberg, "unworthy of a bowery bum." Of course, we know some of the identities of those who did these things, and they should have been questioned intensively at the time. Had there been a real investigation into the assassination, they undoubtedly would have. If the Zapruder film was altered, that will be just another crucial piece of evidence against somebody, but we will probably never be certain of the exact perpetrators.

I hope you don't mean to infer that some of us- especially the dreaded alterationists- are claiming everything is tainted, and that somehow that discredits the suggestion that anything was tainted. Clearly, so much was tainted that it's hard to blame researchers for finding alteration or fabrication everywhere. The autopsy photos and x-rays, for instance, are tainted from the get go because we know how shoddy and incomplete the autopsy was. The fact that they contradict what all the medical personnel in Dallas said about the head wound leads us to conclude that either all those doctors and lawyers were identically mistaken, or the photos and x-rays are not legitimate.

Governor's Connally's clothing- which was part of the evidence in this case- was unquestionably tainted by the fact it was laundered and then eventually found in the possession of Rep. Henry Gonzalez. All of Oswald's alleged comments during his interrogation sessions are tainted, because they weren't recorded. Who knows what he really said? In a broad sense, there are few things connected to this case that weren't tainted somehow.

I'd like to ask another pertinent question. This would be perfect for Josiah and other anti-alterationists. Exactly what evidence, in your view, was tainted? It will be interesting to hear your comments.

Excellent commentary, Don. Very much of the evidence is so tainted it would never be admitted

at a real trial. As you say, only a few pieces of evidence are not tainted in some way.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a devastatingly simple point, Mark.

If the alterationist position is correct... that is, if all the photos and films from Dealey Plaza are deemed to be fakes... what do we have left?

Physical evidence like bullet fragments, holes in clothing, lead smears on the inside of the windshield? But all of this physical evidence was collected by government agents and in government custody. If the film evidence from Dealey Plaza (including films the FBI never heard of until after they had been shown on TV) is deemed suspect, then the physical evidence is even more suspect. What does that leave you with? Eyewitness testimony. But empirical studies by Elizabeth Loftus have pointed out again and again that almost every factor that degrades the reliability of eyewitness testimony was present in Dealey Plaza. That is why the eyewitness testimony we have is contradictory and malleable over time.

The truth is that if the alterationists have their wish they will have destroyed the ability to offer any founded opinions about the Kennedy assassination. If it is true that government agents were involved in the assassination, then the alterationists will have achieved the final government cover-up. Oddly enough, then, the alterationist position is then disclosed for what it is... the "final solution" of obstructionism.

The reality, of course, is quite different. For four decades, we have relied on the amazing good fortune that Abe Zapruder climbed up on that pedestal and that Mary Moorman shot her Polaroid, to anchor what we were saying about Dealey Plaza. The photo evidence properly has beer the armature we used to build an understanding of what happened there. The alterationists have tried for almost twenty years now to make their claim through a series of arguments about anomalies... that is, discrepancies between the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony or other films. After nearly two decades of trying, not a single argument stands up. "Anomaly" after "anomaly" have been offered and then explained innocently.

It is simply not true that the FBI was even very interested in film evidence of the assassination. Another thread has shown how they came tardy to the Muchmore film after it had been acquired by a news service and shown on TV. The Moorman photo was put out on a wire service within an hour or so of the shooting, long before it even came to the FBI's attention. The FBI sent an agent to one photo lab in the Dallas area and that was for about a week. The other two labs (including the Kodak lab) contented themselves with sending out a notice with processed film asking the person to contact the FBI if their film was of the assassination. Given such a loose hold on the film and photo evidence, it would have been madness to try to fake something up. Why? Because the other films... those undiscovered, those viewed and then returned to their owners, those processed in other cities, those put away and only processed much later... would make the fake film stand out.

After all the angry words, the evidentiary situation remains unchanged.

Josiah Thompson

TT,

But wait a minute.

The evidentary situation remains unchanged, we know it was faked in order to implicate Oswald, the Designated Lone Patsy.

If we recognize right away, less than two minutes after the assassination, that Oswald wasn't the sixth floor sniper and was therefore framed as The Patsy, then the evidence used to frame Oswald must certainly be suspect.

And even if Oswald was the sniper and made it down to the second floor lunchroom all according to the official story, then who was that guy moving boxes around on the sixth floor sniper's nest who was seen by the court clerk across the street four minutes after the last shot was fired? If not the real assassin he must have been an accompliss.

Not bothering to stop to argue over the authenticy of the films and photos, what is the purpose of focusing on all the evidence that points to Oswald and ignoring all the evidence of a gunman in the front if it isn't to support the lone gunman scenario?

The whole purpose of the charade of forcing all the evidence to fit the unlikely possibilty that one lone gunman did it from the sixth floor sniper's nest, including the single bullet theory, is to blame it all on Oswald, when we know in fact he didn't do it.

Setting the bar high - proof of conspiracy - for kicking in the Constitution and conducting a proper investigation (a second gunman would do nicelly) rests with the official conclusion that one lone gunman did it all from the sixth floor sniper's nest.

While one gunman may have done it all, I know that gunman, however crazy he may have been, wasn't Oswald, yet the rifle found at the scene points to him.

Then while Oswald, the Primary Suspect is on the 2nd floor with the cop, who was that guy moving the boxes around the sniper's nest on the 6th floor?

Within the hour both Oswald and the person moving the boxes around are both gone, and the Top Cop on the DPD is filmed picking the three shell cases before they are photographed and then toses them back on the floor. So much for the evidence at the crime scene.

There was never any intention to preserve the evidence.

Now that we know Oswald was the Designated Patsy, and if Doug Horne is right in that those who really killed JFK also controlled the body, AF1 and the autopsy, then why shouldn't they also control the TSBD and try to control and alter, if they must, the Zapruder film too?

I don't know that the Z-film was tampered with, but if all of the other evidence is contaminated, then why shouldn't the Z-film also be considered suspect?

The whole purpose of pinning the blame for the assassination on the Designated Lone Patsy, who is subsequently murdered while in police custody, is to keep the Constitutional legal system from properly functioning.

If this was a normal case of a suspicious death, PROOF of conspiracy IS NOT necessary to require a grand jury investigation and proper forensic autopsy of the victims - merely evidence that a crime has been committed. And since evidence has been tampered with, records and documents have been criminally destroyed, other evidence stolen, and known suspects (other than Oswald) have not been investigated, then the place to demonstrate these crimes is a Special Federal Grand Jury.

Just as the anamolies in the Z-film aren't proof that it has been tampered with, let alone proof of conspiracy, the focus on who was behind the guns has been lost, and those responsible for the assassination don't really care who wins the arguments over the evidence, as long as that evidence isn't introduced into the proper legal system and used against them.

Bill Kelly

I guess I'm just expressing my frustration here. But if Fetzer is right, if Jack White is right, if NONE of the evidence [except JFK's suit] is what it appears to be...then perhaps it's time for someone to step up and, rather than concentrating on impeaching ALL the evidence [except JFK's suit], maybe these "super sleuths" can tell us exactly what DID happen..in what exact sequence...and who did what, when, and why.

If we impeach ALL the evidence...what are we left with? The "certainty" that we can never know the truth? It sure seems as if that's the direction that Fetzer, et al, are directing things. And if we can never get to the bottom of the crime, then the study of the JFK assassination certainly HAS become nothing more than a parlor game; a pastime without a purpose.

Is that where we really want to end up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
You make a devastatingly simple point, Mark.

....The truth is that if the alterationists have their wish they will have destroyed the ability to offer any founded opinions about the Kennedy assassination. If it is true that government agents were involved in the assassination, then the alterationists will have achieved the final government cover-up. Oddly enough, then, the alterationist position is then disclosed for what it is... the "final solution" of obstructionism....

....Given such a loose hold on the film and photo evidence, it would have been madness to try to fake something up. Why? Because the other films... those undiscovered, those viewed and then returned to their owners, those processed in other cities, those put away and only processed much later... would make the fake film stand out.

After all the angry words, the evidentiary situation remains unchanged.

Josiah Thompson

I'm sorry, Dr. Thompson, but challenging the "evidence", especially when it has such a sketchy chain of custody as the Zapruder film happens to have, is not obstructionism. The film and still photographic evidence occupies no special status. If it seems to smell, it is fair game for skeptics to examine and to challenge.

Speaking of what "would have been madness to try," Evica knew a lot less than we know about the conflicts of interest involved in this Earl Warren appointment, yet he called it for what it was, 32 years ago. "They" did it anyway, and by this appointment, to such a sensitive position, they committed a crime that destroyed the credibility of the WC's findings.

The fact that they made this appointment should convince you that if they would do something as blatant (desperate ???) as this, they were capable of doing any other obstructive or altering act you could imagine.:

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=e...nG=Search+Books

And We are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the John F. Kennedy ...‎ - Page 388

by George Michael Evica - 1978 - 465 pages

The Jenner-Henry Crown connection alone should have suggested conflict of interests to those responsible for selecting the Warren , Commission's counsel,...

Here is one of the many things that Evica didn't know in 1978.:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=jud...391724319249464

Ex-farmer, judge Crown remembered as 'wise, fair'

- Daily Herald - NewsBank - Mar 8, 1997

Crown clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark from 1956 to 1959 and ... law at the Chicago firm of Jenner and Block, where he became a partner. ...

John J. Crown, judge, philanthropist

- Chicago Sun-Times - NewsBank - Mar 6, 1997

John J. Crown, 67, a former Cook County Circuit Court judge and youngest son of ... In 1959, he joined the law firm of Jenner & Block. ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=7bl3AAAAM...BJWg&edge=1

http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&q=t...nG=Search+Books

The Kennedy assassination cover-up‎ - Page 96

Donald Gibson - History - 2000 - 306 pages+

4287502320_fa33791e8c_o.jpg

Are you saying it is okay to delve into an key WC investigative counsel appointment that is so compromised by conflicted interests that the effect is to destroy the credibility of the WC and its Report's findings, since it can be demonstrated that at least one man who should have been a subject of the investigation managed to install the counsel assigned to do determine if there had been a conspiracy, but that the visual evidence is somehow off limits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You write: "Not bothering to stop to argue over the authenticy of the films and photos, what is the purpose of focusing on all the evidence that points to Oswald and ignoring all the evidence of a gunman in the front if it isn't to support the lone gunman scenario?"

But the authenticity of the films and photos are what I'm talking about. It would be stupid to try to fake them up because the fakery would stand out. As a compilation of photos and films, they are self-authenticating. They have to match each other. It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery. Thus, the alterationists have to keep adding more and more films to their list of fakes since they can't show any incongruity or discrepancy between the photos and films we have. Should yet another film appear tomorrow that matched exactly with the Zapruder and came from some poor slob's attic in Dubuque, Iowa, the alterationist would start saying that it too had been altered. I'm just saying that the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating as a compilation. Other evidence... perhaps CE 399, perhaps the autopsy photos and x-rays, etc.... may well have been faked up. But we have to start somewhere, so why not start with the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza? Smart people have been starting with that evidence for the last fifty years. Why trash it now? Why trash it after alterationists have been trying to impeach it for two decades and have failed miserably?

This argument has nothing to do with your reply, Bill. What do you think of what I just said?

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, Jack, that's not the way it goes.

For example, take a look at the thread currently up concerning Chaney's claim he sped ahead of the limousine to deliver a message to Chief Curry. The Zapruder film shows nothing like this. Rather it shows Chaney being left in the dust as the limousine accelerates out of there. You claimed the discrepancy between what Chaney said happened and what the Zapruder film showed was evidence that the Zapruder film was faked up. We showed that the Bell, Nix and Muchmore films all matched the Zapruder film. You did what you always do when bothered by the pesky problem of film corroboration for the Zapruder film. You said they all had been faked up! Then Craig Lamson posted the McIntire photo that confirms what the other films showed... Chaney trailing by several hundred feet as the limousine comes even with Chief Curry's car. You were asked if you believed that the McIntire photo had been faked up. You declined to answer. Was that because you knew the McIntire photo had never been in government hands?

That's the way it goes, Jack.

Josiah Thompson

Anti-alterationists are very selective in what they will discuss. They will not

address studies indicative of alteration of all films, claiming it would be

"too hard" to make several films match.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You write: "Not bothering to stop to argue over the authenticy of the films and photos, what is the purpose of focusing on all the evidence that points to Oswald and ignoring all the evidence of a gunman in the front if it isn't to support the lone gunman scenario?"

But the authenticity of the films and photos are what I'm talking about. It would be stupid to try to fake them up because the fakery would stand out. As a compilation of photos and films, they are self-authenticating. They have to match each other. It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery. Thus, the alterationists have to keep adding more and more films to their list of fakes since they can't show any incongruity or discrepancy between the photos and films we have. Should yet another film appear tomorrow that matched exactly with the Zapruder and came from some poor slob's attic in Dubuque, Iowa, the alterationist would start saying that it too had been altered. I'm just saying that the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating as a compilation. Other evidence... perhaps CE 399, perhaps the autopsy photos and x-rays, etc.... may well have been faked up. But we have to start somewhere, so why not start with the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza? Smart people have been starting with that evidence for the last fifty years. Why trash it now? Why trash it after alterationists have been trying to impeach it for two decades and have failed miserably?

This argument has nothing to do with your reply, Bill. What do you think of what I just said?

Josiah Thompson

In a corporate environment, superiors often ask you to accomplish things that you know logically can't be done. And when you tell them so, they don't budge. I would assume Government probably functions in a similar manner. I've worked in a Premedia production environment for 23 years and have had to manage very complex projects with content being manufactured all over the world, and sometimes changing in the middle of the run. When that happens, you have to ensure that everything has been changed and the success of the project depends on it. It's managing content, it's a skillset.

All I can say with the subject of managing changed content in this instance is to start with the hypothetical boss coming up to you a couple of days before (or maybe even on the 22nd) Friday and telling you that your assignment is to make certain changes and manage the content of all films and photos coming out of Dealey Plaza showing the assassination sequence. Just ask yourself logically, "how would I do that"?

Believe me, there's an entire industry that was built by intentionally inflexible people giving an unrealistic expectation on an assignment such as this; and the person being given the assignment sitting there scratching his head working out "how do I do that"? Once you figure it out, then you know how. Then you teach others how and then it becomes a known model on how to perform this type of operation...much of the automation you see regarding managing projects like this today came from applying computer science to what were manual processes which started out as "how do I do that"?

Knowing the potential for other films and photos to surface through the years I would believe would be managed two ways.

One would be to try to take an inventory of all cameras in the plaza. At the very least to have some sort of overview of how many cameras were in which area and at least if you've taken count, you have an idea of how many potential films or photos could realistically surface. Knowing who was filming from where would help drive the decision making process regarding what alterations could be done to the film, by knowing in advance who could later come forward with something contradictory.

Two, you would decide that alteration needed to stay as minimal as possible to avoid other films contradicting the alterations done that could surface later.

So the point is valid, but you should assume that whoever could have had responsibility for this would have accounted for this potential in the upfront decision-making process regarding what to alter.

I know that much more elaborate alteration hypotheses are out there, but alteration can be as simple as splices at 155 and 207 and no other film containing that sequence, could something that simple be managed?

It's daunting for sure, but whether it's impossible I'm not really sold on that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really interesting post, Will Emaus.

But how would you "take an inventory of all cameras in the plaza?" A rolling inventory wouldn't do you much good. You'd have to know right away what you were dealing with to judge whether to make the changes you have in mind. But the only way you could get an idea of what cameras were cranking away in Dealey Plaza would be to look at the films and photos you have of Dealey Plaza. And that would be always incomplete. Take the Nix film for example. Nix kept the film in his camera through the following weekend where he photographed on the same film a high school football game. If you were screwing around with the Zapruder film, the Nix film showing up a week or ten days later could sure cause you a world of woe.

I guess my basic point is that you couldn't put together "an inventory of all cameras in the plaza" or an "overview of how many cameras were in which area" until long after the event. Until long after the films or photos you want to alter have passed through multiple copies after being returned to their owners or, in the case of the Zapruder film, having been published in millions of copies in a national magazine.

I'd be interested in what you think of these considerations, Will Emaus.

Josiah Thompson

One would be to try to take an inventory of all cameras in the plaza. At the very least to have some sort of overview of how many cameras were in which area and at least if you've taken count, you have an idea of how many potential films or photos could realistically surface. Knowing who was filming from where would help drive the decision making process regarding what alterations could be done to the film, by knowing in advance who could later come forward with something contradictory.

Two, you would decide that alteration needed to stay as minimal as possible to avoid other films contradicting the alterations done that could surface later.

So the point is valid, but you should assume that whoever could have had responsibility for this would have accounted for this potential in the upfront decision-making process regarding what to alter.

I know that much more elaborate alteration hypotheses are out there, but alteration can be as simple as splices at 155 and 207 and no other film containing that sequence, could something that simple be managed?

It's daunting for sure, but whether it's impossible I'm not really sold on that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...