If the Zapruder film was altered, then the following must apply.

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

Fact: All films and photographs listed below are interlinked with the Zapruder film.

If the Zapruder film was altered, and Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming with Sitzman, then the following must apply.

The Zapruder film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

Zapruder was part of the conspiracy.

Sitzman was part of the conspiracy.

Beatrice Hester was part of the conspiracy.

Charles Hester was part of the conspiracy.

The Nix film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Nix film must have been altered.

Nix must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Muchmore film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Muchmore film must have been altered.

Muchmore must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Hughes film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Hughes film must have been altered.

Hughes must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Bronson film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Bronson film and photos (slides) must have been altered

Bronson must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Moorman photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Moorman photograph must have been altered.

Moorman must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Altgens photographs were a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Altgens photographs 6, 7 and 8 must have been altered.

Altgens must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Willis photogeaph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Wilis photograph must have been altered.

Willis must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Betzner photographs were a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Betzner photographs 2 and 3 must have been altered.

Betzner must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Croft photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Croft photograph must have been altered.

Croft must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Paschall film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Paschall film must have been altered.

Paschall must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Towner film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Towner film must be altered.

Towner must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Rickerby photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Rickerby photograph showing Zapruder, Sitzman and the Hesters must have been altered.

Rickerby must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Bell film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Bell film must have been altered.

Bell must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Couch film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Couch film must have been altered.

Couch must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Weigman film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Weigman film must have been altered.

Weigman must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Daniel film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Daniel film must have been altered.

Daniel must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Martin film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Martin film must have been altered.

Martin must have been part of the conspiracy.

Employees at all of the different Labs, where all of these films and photographs were processed, must have been part of the conspiracy.

It's all completely bonkers.

Duncan MacRae.

[David Josephs]

An interesting Soliloquy Duncan.... but I must disagree...

If TIME was removed from any of the Z film then I can see your points...

IMO time was not changed in the z film... only what can be made out...

and since time is consistant across all the films and photos, none of those other

events need to be dependent on the changing of what we see on the Z film...

Case in point... here is an obvious black square that has been superimposed over JFK's head and enhanced a bit

along with the frames before and after... the black area covering the back of JFK's head seems an obvious

alteration to the original film... without it affecting the timing of Altgens or any of the other flims/photos.

{click on gif}

MUST alteration mean splicing time from the film? I don't think the evidence supports it, as well as your post which illustrates the folly of assuming the Z film had things taken out like a limo stop or other such actions that are not corroborated by the other films/photos.

DJ

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Duncan McRae now advances the incredible drivel that for the Zapruder film to have

been faked, it must have been done BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION OCCURRED.

Since I have replied to this mind-boggling nonsense on another thread, where Jim

DiEugenio has joined this new community of dunces, I shall repost it again here.

Jim, I hate to break it to you, but NO ONE took the Zapruder film: it was faked!

I made the point in relation to Jesse's program on JFK: Marina cannot have taken

the backyard photographs BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE! Like most fakes, it was done by

taking some photographs and then pasting in Lee Oswald's face, just as he claimed

when he was interrogated by Will Fritz. Did you miss the memo? Jim Marrs and I

published a long piece about it when this Dartmouth computer scientist (falsely)

claimed to have shown the photo--he only studied one of a set of four--was genuine,

by showing that he could recreate the nose shadow if he arranged his lighting in a

special fashion. But that does not change the chin into Oswald's chin or remove

the insert line between the chin and his lower lip or restore the finger tips of

his right hand or correct the height disparity when you use the newspapers he is

holding as an internal ruler. Are you unaware of all of this? Haven't you read,

"The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

I begin to wonder if there is any area of JFK research at which you are competent.

They took authentic film from Dealey Plaza, removed frames and events and added new

frames and events, including the limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of

Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit that it had to be taken out.

In the process, they put Mary and Jean back on the grass and deleted Officer Chaney

motoring forward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot. Don't you

even know that there are five physical differences in the strips of celluloid that were

taken to the NPIC, the one from Dallas on Saturday night, the one from Rochester on

Sunday night, where they were processed by different teams, as I've explained here:

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

In the process of reconstructing the film, however, they committed some blunders. Do

you know that none of the witnesses reported the back-and-to-the-left motion that is

so dramatic in the extant film? Do you know that, if he was hit from the right/front,

his brains should have been blown out to the left/rear, which in fact was the case but

is grossly misrepresented in the extant film. I have explained all of these things in

many places, including HOAX, but you obviously have never studied it or even read its

Preface and Prologue or you would not be displaying so much ignorance about it. Try:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Please know that it gives me no pleasure exposing your ignorance and incompetence in JFK

research. I have long thought that you were a force for good. Beginning with your blunder

about Mary Morgan, however, which was powerfully reinforced by your defense of the denial of

the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador, it has become apparent to me that you are

actually obstructing understanding of the medical evidence and of the fabrication of the film,

which has been demonstrated in spades with these three reviews you have promoted about the

Chambers' book, LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION, and Jesse's program on JFK.

But without understanding the medical evidence and the film, you cannot understand the case.

It's rather comparable to a root canal: there is deep decay here that has to be cleaned out.

To Jack and Fetzer:

What I am saying here is an accurate interpretation of what your are clearly driving at.

You are clearly driving toward the point that Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film.

IF this is so, then everything else I listed almost certainly has to follow.

Have a nice time proving it.

Lifton had the courtesy to personally email me his post.

I post here in reply what I emailed him.

"I am not barking up the wrong tree on this.

I read Horne's book thoroughly. ANd I took notes.

As far as that statement goes, it is correct i.e. concerning whether or not the remains of JFK were taken off the plane, to another destination ie. Walter Reed, and altered there. Horne's book does not endorse this.

My reference was to Fetzer who endorses fully both you and Horne.

They cannot both me true.

Its as simple as that."

Just let me add one thing here. All this stuff going on here really worries me. Its one thing to say that CE 399 was substituted and to be able to prove it with firsthand testimony, and documents and a visual inspection of the exhibit. It is something else to say that somehow Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film, and was therefore enlisted in the plot beforehand. Are you now also going to say that he was given a preproduced film to show? Because if he was not there, he did not shoot the film. Therefore, the film is not just altered, it was manufactured beforehand. Besides the fact that there is no proof for this, it requires a magnitude of film sorcery that is breathtaking for that time. Plus it says that the plotters knew who was going to be there in advance, and what they were going to wear! Since, clearly the film shows witnesses like Hill, Moorman with clothes they were wearing in other films.

This is what happens though when nothing is ever enough. As Ed Tatro has said, proving a conspiracy nine ways to Sunday is not enough for certain people. THey want to prove it 21 ways to Sunday. And then like Jean Genet, they want to question the very nature of each and every witness and his evidence--even if that evidence already proves conspiracy.

Pardon me if I leave the room at this point. But the air is getting too thin to breathe.

Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I must repeat.

The extant film was NOT shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Therefore the extant film cannot be said to be an ALTERATION of a Zapruder film, but indeed a FABRICATION.

The extant film is a concoction, a fabrication, a cartoon, an animation based on guide films and genuine films.

It is less than 500 frames and was quickly made into its extant form to fit a required scenario. The limo turning

the corner was "removed", the limo stop was "removed", Chaney riding forward was "removed", Jean and Mary

in the street were "removed"...I could go on and on. Read HOAX, Costella tutorials, and Fetzer website. Everything

is spelled out in detail. Quit speculating.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

Fact: All films and photographs listed below are interlinked with the Zapruder film.

If the Zapruder film was altered, and Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming with Sitzman, then the following must apply.

The Zapruder film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

Zapruder was part of the conspiracy.

Sitzman was part of the conspiracy.

Beatrice Hester was part of the conspiracy.

Charles Hester was part of the conspiracy.

The Nix film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Nix film must have been altered.

Nix must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Muchmore film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Muchmore film must have been altered.

Muchmore must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Hughes film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Hughes film must have been altered.

Hughes must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Bronson film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Bronson film and photos (slides) must have been altered

Bronson must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Moorman photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Moorman photograph must have been altered.

Moorman must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Altgens photographs were a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Altgens photographs 6, 7 and 8 must have been altered.

Altgens must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Willis photogeaph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Wilis photograph must have been altered.

Willis must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Betzner photographs were a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Betzner photographs 2 and 3 must have been altered.

Betzner must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Croft photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Croft photograph must have been altered.

Croft must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Paschall film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Paschall film must have been altered.

Paschall must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Towner film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Towner film must be altered.

Towner must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Rickerby photograph was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Rickerby photograph showing Zapruder, Sitzman and the Hesters must have been altered.

Rickerby must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Bell film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Bell film must have been altered.

Bell must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Couch film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Couch film must have been altered.

Couch must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Weigman film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Weigman film must have been altered.

Weigman must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Daniel film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Daniel film must have been altered.

Daniel must have been part of the conspiracy.

The Martin film was a pre Nov 22nd 1963 production.

The Martin film must have been altered.

Martin must have been part of the conspiracy.

Employees at all of the different Labs, where all of these films and photographs were processed, must have been part of the conspiracy.

It's all completely bonkers.

Duncan MacRae.

buy yourself a pint, Dunc.... you're off-base on this.... and frankly, anyone responding to those of the *don't-screw-with-my-version-of-Dealey-Plaza-history Zapruder film* film purist, regarding possible Z-film alteration issues, well, they're playing right into lone nut hands...

Until you (and others) understand and KNOW what a optical film lab is, then stand in one, have know optical film matte (special effects) artists, and most importantly know how to PROVE what currently exists as: the "in-camera Zapruder film" (currently residing at NARA) as the actual film shot from the DP pedestal on Nov 1963... you're wasting bandwidth, as simple as that!

I've heard every whine about why it CAN'T be altered and not one, ONE factual, tangible piece of evidence citing the film to be un-altered... all opinion, Dunc -- and opinion is NOT fact!

Of course, you are welcome to your own opinions -- but do us a favor, declare your comments as your own opinion(s)...

Thanks,

David Healy

[Bill Miller]

buy yourself a pint, Dunc.... you're off-base on this.... and frankly, anyone responding to those of the *don't-screw-with-my-version-of-Dealey-Plaza-history Zapruder film* film purist, regarding possible Z-film alteration issues, well, they're playing right into lone nut hands...

Until you (and others) understand and KNOW what a optical film lab is, then stand in one, have know optical film matte (special effects) artists, and most importantly know how to PROVE what currently exists as: the "in-camera Zapruder film" (currently residing at NARA) as the actual film shot from the DP pedestal on Nov 1963... you're wasting bandwidth, as simple as that!

I've heard every whine about why it CAN'T be altered and not one, ONE factual, tangible piece of evidence citing the film to be un-altered... all opinion, Dunc -- and opinion is NOT fact!

Of course, you are welcome to your own opinions -- but do us a favor, declare your comments as your own opinion(s)...

Thanks,

David Healy

David, you have been saying the same thing for years and never once have you actually did what you say can be done. In fact, I am sure that I can still find where you have said that there is' no proof that the Zapruder film has been altered'. And for at least three years running now I have asked you what you have done to get to inspect the in-camera original and not one word of proof have you come up with - no refusal by the NARA to allow you or an expert to examine the film - or even so much as a scribbled rough draft of you making such a request. I am beginning to believe that you don't want to make such a request for you won't even know how to begin, thus another nail will be pounded into your coffin of propaganda. But don't feel alone ... I have yet to see where Jack or Fetzer have made such a request, as well. You bozo's play off each other and never allow yourselves to be reviewed outside of your cult. It would just seem to me that if any of you really gave a rats behind about JFK and really thought the Zapruder film was altered, then you'd have done the initial steps of examining the very film you claim to want to examine. Watching you people over the years is like watching the Jerry Springer Show .... All trash talk and never any action!

Bill Miller

Edited December 28, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I must repeat.

The extant film was NOT shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Therefore the extant film cannot be said to be an ALTERATION of a Zapruder film, but indeed a FABRICATION.

Jack

Jack, it appears then that you believe that Zapruder and Sitzman lied about being on the pedestal when Zapruder filmed the assassination. This also means that the Hester's must also be a part of the lie for they knew who Sitzman and Zapruder were. In fact, Zapruder filmed Sitzman and the Hesters together just prior to mounting the pedestal. To date you have never offered up one witness that saw Zapruder and Sitzman anywhere else than on the pedestal during the assassination. Post shooting, Sitzman was interviewed at the pedestal ... the images are clearly her. So how about you not speculating and at least tell people where Zapruder and Sitzman were during the assassination? You were friends with Jean Hill and I have heard Jean say on several occasions that she saw Zapruder on that pedestal .... is Jean part of the alteration cover-up now??

Bill

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If you had actually read HOAX, I very much doubt that you would be posting such drivel here. Just to prove

me wrong, take the Prologue to HOAX and explain which of the arguments I present that support the alteration

of the film are wrong? I am quite sure that neither you nor Bill Miller is going to rise to the occasion, since it

would expose the absurdity of your positions, given the available evidence. Since I have been dealing with

Jim DiEugenio, who has a diminished capacity for dealing with complex, technical issues, I have emphasized a

few key points, such as that Roderick Ryan explained to Noel Tywman that the "blob" of bulging brains had been

painted in, while a new group of Hollywood experts has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head was

painted over in black (very crudely), which can be compared with frame 374, in which we can actually see the

blow-out to the back of the head (which is bluish-gray, where the skull flap is pink). Since the "blob" bulges out

to the right/front, while we know that his brains were actually blown out to the left/rear, we don't even have

to go to the limo stop or to the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body, which was not observed by any witness

in Dealey Plaza. Why don't you check out "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox", for example, or "Forrest Gump on the

grassy knoll: Weather advisories for Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio", where I discuss some of this evidence.

Of course, you might want to review "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", where I summarize

the five physical features that distinguish the films brought to the NPIC on Saturday night (from Dallas) and on

Sunday night (from Rochester). But I don't want to overtax your reasoning abilities, since, as Duncan MacRae has

candidly conceded, you are not "critical thinkers", which anyone can infer from the posts you are making here.

I must repeat.

The extant film was NOT shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Therefore the extant film cannot be said to be an ALTERATION of a Zapruder film, but indeed a FABRICATION.

The extant film is a concoction, a fabrication, a cartoon, an animation based on guide films and genuine films.

It is less than 500 frames and was quickly made into its extant form to fit a required scenario. The limo turning

the corner was "removed", the limo stop was "removed", Chaney riding forward was "removed", Jean and Mary

in the street were "removed"...I could go on and on. Read HOAX, Costella tutorials, and Fetzer website. Everything

is spelled out in detail. Quit speculating.

Jack

I've read HOAX, Jack.

Some of my work is included in HOAX, although it was wrongly attributed to Alan Healy. Jim Fetzer has acknowledged his error.

Remember the Tripod? ( Which I have self debunked as a piece of trash ) Check the index to see me credited.

On this forum, Jim said that he would correct the error in any future edition. To be honest though, I would rather he didn't.

Duncan

[David Josephs]

Well, here they are all the way from Betzner thru Nix as he pans from them to the kill shot...

There would be no other spot behind Zapruder that could film everything from Betzner to Nix without completely distorting the viewing angles... Either this OTHER film was taken from a camera suspended over his head or you have 3-5 other film cameras going, all behind Zapruder and from angles much higher than can be seen in any photos of DP.

Using Willis for example... how does someone else take that footage... we see zapruder on the pedestal and nothing but sky and trees behind him... yet someone else takes this image??? From where?

and this image at z451... was there someone on top of the pergola filming this?

Sorry, but fabrication, while possible does not seem very probable... whereas alteration on the film itself, before copies, makes much more sense and requires no timing concerns... the limo could not have stopped and every other piece of visual evidence was also altered... that's absurd. Covered or erased... that's another issue entirely and the reason the film needed to make that stop at Hawkeye... how I see it.

[David Josephs]

Bottom line Duncan... if the film did not lose any time... or no more than a few frames... none of the other things you list are required.

and they are also not required if the film was "retouched" and stayed on it's timeline.

Plus... didn't the acoustic evidence coincide exactly with the shot sequence seen on Zapruder if one worked back from 313...

There's the reality of a conspiracy and all the evidence that points to it and then there's paranoia over each and every piece of evidence available. I think you've made your point about Z film "alterationists/fabricators"....

but surely you can agree that the film could be altered without it conflicting with the other evidence...

[Bill Miller]

There's the reality of a conspiracy and all the evidence that points to it and then there's paranoia over each and every piece of evidence available. I think you've made your point about Z film "alterationists/fabricators"....

but surely you can agree that the film could be altered without it conflicting with the other evidence...

It would depend on what the alteration is. Every little detail must match other films recording the same moments in time. The existing claims of alteration to date would be noticeable and have always fallen short of the mark under their own weight. For instance, panning and motion blur for any given film frame can be measured. An alteration of one particular event would have to be done so that it too matches the same degree of motion and panning blur, which when seen in that light it becomes an impossible task to ever hope to achieve.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Sorry, but fabrication, while possible does not seem very probable... whereas alteration on the film itself, before copies, makes much more sense and requires no timing concerns... the limo could not have stopped and every other piece of visual evidence was also altered... that's absurd. Covered or erased... that's another issue entirely and the reason the film needed to make that stop at Hawkeye... how I see it.

It should be said that it is possible the Zapruder film could be altered - thats been a given. The problem from the beginning is that it would be impossible to have altered the film and have it stand up to scientific scrutiny and not be detected. In all the years I have heard these various alteration claims ... no one has ever made one stick for such apparent reasons.

Bill

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Right! Like the five physical differences between the strips of celluloid that were brought to the NPIC on successive days;

like the back-and-to-the-left motion that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses observed; like the brains bulging out to the

right/front in the film when they were actually blown out to the left/rear; like the invisible blow-out to the back of his head

in frames 313-316, which the Hollywood experts have confirmed was painted over in black; like the "blob" bulging out to

the right/front, which Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman had been painted in; like the visible blow-out to the back of the

head, which can be seen in frame 374 but missing in frames 313-316; like Officer James Chaney motoring forward, which

several other officers and Chief Curry confirmed, which is not seen in the film; like the missing debris that was scattered

across the trunk of the car, which nauseated Secret Service agents when they saw it in Washington, but which is missing

from the trunk in the film; like the report by Erwin Swartz, an associate of Zapruder, who observed the film in Dallas and

reported seeing the brains blown out to the left/rear; on and on. No wonder that Duncan MacRae will not even describe

the evidence in HOAX, because it blows his claim that we have "no proof that the film was altered" out of the water, which

is not only completely dishonest but intellectually absurd. That is what the critics of alteration have been reduced to here.

Bottom line Duncan... if the film did not lose any time... or no more than a few frames... none of the other things you list are required.

and they are also not required if the film was "retouched" and stayed on it's timeline.

Plus... didn't the acoustic evidence coincide exactly with the shot sequence seen on Zapruder if one worked back from 313...

There's the reality of a conspiracy and all the evidence that points to it and then there's paranoia over each and every piece of evidence available. I think you've made your point about Z film "alterationists/fabricators"....

but surely you can agree that the film could be altered without it conflicting with the other evidence...

David,

The real bottom line is that the alterationists on this Forum have never seen or studied the original archived Zapruder film. They therefore have no proof that the Zapruder film was altered....that's a fact!

Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

The Z film clearly does not depict actual events. THEREFORE, it is a given that all objections raised by non-believers

automaticallY are givens also. This is simple LOGIC, not a matter of whether it could be done or not.

GET IT? The film is provably NOT AUTHENTIC. So any objections regarding any other films or persons which may

seem contradictory MUST ALSO BE NOT AUTHENTIC. Regardless of theories to the contrary, ALL OBJECTIONS are invalid.

The logic of this cannot be contradicted. That is why "anti-alterationists" cringe at the thought of a faked Z film...all

their theories go down the drain.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Right! Like the five physical differences between the strips of celluloid that were brought to the NPIC on successive days;

like the back-and-to-the-left motion that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses observed; like the brains bulging out to the

right/front in the film when they were actually blown out to the left/rear; like the invisible blow-out to the back of his head

in frames 313-316, which the Hollywood experts have confirmed was painted over in black; like the "blob" bulging out to

the right/front, which Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman had been painted in; like the visible blow-out to the back of the

head, which can be seen in frame 374 but missing in frames 313-316; like Officer James Chaney motoring forward, which

several other officers and Chief Curry confirmed, which is not seen in the film; like the missing debris that was scattered

across the trunk of the car, which nauseated Secret Service agents when they saw it in Washington, but which is missing

from the trunk in the film; like the report by Erwin Swartz, an associate of Zapruder, who observed the film in Dallas and

reported seeing the brains blown out to the left/rear; on and on. No wonder that Duncan MacRae will not even describe

the evidence in HOAX, because it blows his claim that we have "no proof that the film was altered" out of the water, which

is not only completely dishonest but intellectually absurd. That is what the critics of alteration have been reduced to here.

There is a reason why such claims, if they had real merit, have not drawn the attention of the rest of the world. The Zapruder film is full of blur, which has been mentioned countless times. The film itself is not sharp enough to offer the kinds of detail that the alteration people believe should be seen. As far as the rear head wound goes - it is seen in both the Zapruder and Nix films. When the head is turned in profile to Zapruder's LOS, then the enormous bulge is quite visible. That bulge represents the avulsed bones on the back of the head. The further away from Zapruder the car gets, the less blur there would be compared to when the car was moving left to right at a higher rate of speed through Mr. Zs field of view. The problem then is that the further distance the car is from the camera, then its too far to see the wound.

As far as where the brains went - there was brain spatter reported throughout the car and not just to the rear. Panning and motion blur has been talked about a lot in other instances concerning the assassination. Such blurring all but removed Zapruder and Sitzman from the Wiegman film.

Bill