OK Then...What Evidence is NOT Tainted?

[Will Emaus]

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.

Well if you have 3 people shooting at the president as you suggest, it's not much of a stretch to suggest that someone could have been filming the plaza during the assassination sequence to do nothing more than to determine who else was filming, and then evaluate that film right away on Friday night.

Just my opinion of course, but if I was given the responsibility to control the films and photos that's what I would do right away, is take that one step to get a ballpark idea of how much I'm going to need to control and what I can get away with altering...I guess my point is that I would take your point about being able to realistically control all of the films/photos very seriously before the assassination even happened if I wanted to succeed and take steps to try and manage that.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

That's just plain silly, Jack ... and documentably untrue. Many discussions about the alleged "proofs" of the Z-film being fake have taken place here and in other forums all over the net, and several articles looking at specific "proofs" have been written, published and discussed. As I recall, you claimed at the time that you would not even bother to read the ETERNAL RETURN: Was There a Hole Through the Windshield? article. The Moorman in the street "proof" has been extensively covered, and an article was devoted to it ... specifically addressing every bit of your "proofs" on that issue.

Mr. Fetzer did not participate at all in the extensive thread on the limo windshield article, after being the one to raise the issue and drag you and other non yahoo group members into it on the yahoo group. You posted but one post in the thread saying:

Cliff is correct. Anyone who has studied the evidence for years should have

made up their mind by now on many issues.

Was the single bullet theory real? NO.

Were all shots fired by LHO from the 6th floor? NO.

Was there a hole in the windshield? YES.

Was LHO employed by an intelligence agency? YES.

Is the Zapruder film genuine? NO.

Was LBJ one of the plotters? YES.

Was Mary standing in the street? YES.

Were there two Oswalds? YES.

Was James Files a shooter? NO.

Did the limo stop? YES.

Did Judyth Baker have a passionate affair with LHO? NO.

Was Chauncey Holt the old tramp? NO.

Etcetcetcetc.

Give me a list of as many questions as you want. I will give you a yes or no

answer to all unless there is a reason to say "maybe/maybe not."

Endless debate after studying the case 45 years is a sign of indecisiveness.

Find another hobby if you are afraid to weigh the evidence and reach a

decision.

Jack

The entire thread is here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0#entry169299

Those who do not believe in alteration WANT to discuss these "proofs" ... but are regularly met with condescension, character assassination and nothing but a lot of dive, dodge and divert from the majority of your "alterationists" team... especially from those who keep coming up with and ballyhooing these "proofs." Sometimes, non alteration believers attempts to discuss are ignored completely. It is not the "anti-alterationists" who are not interested in discussing these issues.

It appears you, Jack, are one of the "very selective in what they will discuss" people you describe above.

Barb :-)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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?

Well I am just an innocent country boy, but since neither of the the leading film alterationists here --Jack White and Jim Fetzer -- seem to have a clue on something as basic as how to use the DELETE BUTTON on their computers, I cannot take them seriously.

Their posts here are mostly DEJA VU Ad NAUSEAM. (See thread on USING THE JFK FORUM).

The ultimate absurdity of the alterationist position was shown recently by Dr. Fetzer, when he claimed that JFK's backward head snap is PROOF that the ZFIlm was altered.

To my eyes and to millions of others, the head snap is PROOF that JFK was shot from the front.

[Jack White]

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

That's just plain silly, Jack ... and documentably untrue. Many discussions about the alleged "proofs" of the Z-film being fake have taken place here and in other forums all over the net, and several articles looking at specific "proofs" have been written, published and discussed. As I recall, you claimed at the time that you would not even bother to read the ETERNAL RETURN: Was There a Hole Through the Windshield? article. The Moorman in the street "proof" has been extensively covered, and an article was devoted to it ... specifically addressing every bit of your "proofs" on that issue.

Mr. Fetzer did not participate at all in the extensive thread on the limo windshield article, after being the one to raise the issue and drag you and other non yahoo group members into it on the yahoo group. You posted but one post in the thread saying:

Cliff is correct. Anyone who has studied the evidence for years should have

made up their mind by now on many issues.

Was the single bullet theory real? NO.

Were all shots fired by LHO from the 6th floor? NO.

Was there a hole in the windshield? YES.

Was LHO employed by an intelligence agency? YES.

Is the Zapruder film genuine? NO.

Was LBJ one of the plotters? YES.

Was Mary standing in the street? YES.

Were there two Oswalds? YES.

Was James Files a shooter? NO.

Did the limo stop? YES.

Did Judyth Baker have a passionate affair with LHO? NO.

Was Chauncey Holt the old tramp? NO.

Etcetcetcetc.

Give me a list of as many questions as you want. I will give you a yes or no

answer to all unless there is a reason to say "maybe/maybe not."

Endless debate after studying the case 45 years is a sign of indecisiveness.

Find another hobby if you are afraid to weigh the evidence and reach a

decision.

Jack

The entire thread is here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0#entry169299

Those who do not believe in alteration WANT to discuss these "proofs" ... but are regularly met with condescension, character assassination and nothing but a lot of dive, dodge and divert from the majority of your "alterationists" team... especially from those who keep coming up with and ballyhooing these "proofs." Sometimes, non alteration believers attempts to discuss are ignored completely. It is not the "anti-alterationists" who are not interested in discussing these issues.

It appears you, Jack, are one of the "very selective in what they will discuss" people you describe above.

Barb :-)

HaHaHaHa! Great comic relief. I needed a good laugh.

Seriously, get the "anti-alterationists" to discuss the "Hesters" in this image. I have been trying all day.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

Wow

Awesome post Will

Your thoughts that you just posted had never occured to me

You have me thinking

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

Barb

Hey Barb before I can take any of your answers seriously can you spin that yarn again about Groden working for a New Jersey Photo Lab back in 1964 when his first job in the photographic industry was in 1969

Now that would give me more of a laugh then you just gave Jack

Edited January 20, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Now that would give me more of a laugh then you just gave Jack

Gee Dean, by my quick count, your post consisted of 48 lines of text.

But only 3 lines were your own words. All the rest was REGURGITATION.

So You are not really a poster here. You are just a REGURGITATOR.

[Dean Hagerman]

Gee Dean

Wrong Ray

[Jack White]

Now that would give me more of a laugh then you just gave Jack

Gee Dean, by my quick count, your post consisted of 48 lines of text.

But only 3 lines were your own words. All the rest was REGURGITATION.

So You are not really a poster here. You are just a REGURGITATOR.

By actual count, your post consisted of one line of quotation and three lines of nonsense.

Please list the quotas for

1. regurgitation

2. quotations

3. nonsense

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Now that would give me more of a laugh then you just gave Jack

Gee Dean, by my quick count, your post consisted of 48 lines of text.

But only 3 lines were your own words. All the rest was REGURGITATION.

So You are not really a poster here. You are just a REGURGITATOR.

By actual count, your post consisted of one line of quotation and three lines of nonsense.

Please list the quotas for

1. regurgitation

2. quotations

3. nonsense

Jack

Good point Jack, all of Rays posts are 100% nonsense

Ray knows I know how to shorten quotes or not use them at all, but instead of talking about real issues like the Hester pile of rubble in the Bell film that you have found he goes on and on about quotes and how to use them

Maybe from now on I will quote all of Rays posts in triple

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Maybe from now on I will quote all of Rays posts in triple

Since re-posting other people's posts is your principal occupation here, then by all means re-post mine. Fetzer and White's posts, which you often re-post, consist mostly of re-posting other people, since neither of them -- like yourself -- seems able to figure out how to use the DELETE BUTTON.

Most of the film alterationist posts here can be described as DEJA VU AD NAUSEAM.

[Will Emaus]

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.

Wow

Awesome post Will

Your thoughts that you just posted had never occured to me

You have me thinking

Dean

Thanks Dean, I'm still a rookie at most of this but the more I think about it I just can't imagine a conspiracy scenario without controlling the visual record. The possibility of alteration not matching films that surfaced later is valid, but how could you have multiple shooters and leave to chance the possibility that someone filmed them?

It just seems to me that having some operation to control the visual record would have to be part of a conspiracy scenario, and if so then the need to alter, even if alteration is just defined as controlling what is seen publicly, has to exist too...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Thanks Dean, I'm still a rookie at most of this but the more I think about it I just can't imagine a conspiracy scenario without controlling the visual record.

Another film alterationist who cannot find the DELETE BUTTON?

What is it with you film alterationist guys? Don't you know this is the 21st Century?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15256

[Dean Hagerman]

Thanks Dean, I'm still a rookie at most of this but the more I think about it I just can't imagine a conspiracy scenario without controlling the visual record. The possibility of alteration not matching films that surfaced later is valid, but how could you have multiple shooters and leave to chance the possibility that someone filmed them?

It just seems to me that having some operation to control the visual record would have to be part of a conspiracy scenario, and if so then the need to alter, even if alteration is just defined as controlling what is seen publicly, has to exist too...

Good call Will

[Dean Hagerman]

then by all means re-post mine.

then by all means re-post mine.

then by all means re-post mine.

Hows this look?

Where is my delete button Ray?

I cant seem to find it

I guess because I quote posts some of the time (in Rays fantasy land I quote every post every time in full) it must mean I know nothing about the assassination