What prevented Dulles & Angleton from destroying the Zapruder film?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul Rigby writes:

Quote

if as we have seen the initial assassination scenario’s purpose included scapegoating the Soviet Union and Cuba, evidence of a conspiracy was no problem.

Exactly! He's got there at last!

If evidence of a conspiracy was no problem, there was no need to alter the Zapruder film. Paul has made his entire, Byzantine, cast-of-thousands conspiracy redundant.

Why does Paul feel the need to invent things that then need to be excised from the film? His easily falsified car-in-the-left-hand-lane nonsense, for example. Why invent that, insert it into the film, and then have to invent a team of film-fakers to remove it?

The same goes for every imaginary piece of incriminating evidence that we don't actually see in the Zapruder film. If you don't invent it in the first place, you don't need to remove it.

Cut out the anomaly-generated imaginary middlemen altogether, and you'd end up where we have been for nearly 60 years, with a Zapruder film that provides evidence of conspiracy.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul has constructed a far-fetched and ridiculously complex structure out of essentially nothing but his imagination. How has he managed this?

It's because the methodology used by Paul, and by other 'everything is a fake' believers, is faulty:

- A small subset of the relevant witnesses reported something anomalous, so it must have happened!
- A poor-quality reproduction of an image contains anomalies, so the image must have been altered!
- A document mentions something anomalous, so it must be accurate!

But people are fallible. They can make mistakes when filling in forms and other documents. Witnesses can make mistakes when recalling anything, let alone brief, unexpected and traumatic events such as seeing the president get shot. Witnesses to anything are even more likely to make mistakes when the events they are recalling took place years earlier. Images too are fallible, simply due to the laws of physics. Reproductions of the analogue films and photos taken in 1963 will very often generate anomalous artefacts that weren't there in the original.

Anomalies are worth spotting, because they can in theory lead to a reappraisal of the evidence. But almost always they don't. They are just mistakes: in images, written documents, and recollections. When you find an anomaly, you need to do the rational thing: see if you can come up with a common-sense, everyday explanation for that anomaly. Close to one hundred percent of the time, you will find that a simple, credible explanation exists. When you find one, use it.

Paul's enormous conspiracy relies on anomalies. A handful of people claimed to have seen something vaguely like the Zapruder film on TV in the first few days after the assassination! Wow! Someone in the CIA recalled something several decades after the event! Amazing!

And this guy was corroborated by a colleague! Incredible! And the colleague admitted that he was suffering from dementia! That makes him even more believable! Some people claimed they saw the car moving into the left-hand lane! That means it must have happened!

There are so many anomalies! Surely they can't all be worthless? Yes, they can, easily. No matter how many anomalous witnesses (or anomalous blobs in a photo) you have assembled, it's very likely that your alternative explanation, when it has been worked out in detail, will still be less plausible than any common-sense explanations for those anomalies.

The working-it-out-in-detail part is where things falls down. It's easy to state that such-and-such a film or photo was faked. It's not so easy to provide a plausible, detailed explanation of how it was done.

Paul's ginormous conspiracy requires the Zapruder film to have been faked. How was that done? The Bad Guys didn't just snap their fingers. Please describe the process in detail.

If the Zapruder film has been faked, all the films and photos that agree with it must also have been faked, as I pointed out earlier. How was that done? The Bad Guys didn't just snap their fingers. Please describe the process in detail.

One complicating factor is that the photographs and home movies that corroborate the Zapruder film came into existence at different times, and were made public at different times.

The Moorman photo, for example, was a Polaroid, and emerged as a finished picture approximately 50 seconds after the shutter button was pressed. It was seen by other people within minutes of the assassination. It was shown on NBC-TV at around 3.15pm. Copies were made within hours, and were in the possession of journalists. It appeared in a large number of newspapers the following day. In the photo, the police motorcyclists whose presence to the left of the car is a fake, according to Paul, occupy roughly a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.

The Altgens 7 photo, which completely contradicts Paul's claim that the presidential car moved to the left at the time of the fatal shot, was the next one to come to light. The negative was processed less than half an hour after the assassination. How was that faked, and made to match the already existing Moorman photo, in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.

The Muchmore film, which also shows the car clearly in the middle lane and not the left-hand lane, was in Muchmore's camera until the following Monday, when it was sold before being processed. It was shown on TV the next day. How was that faked, and made to match the already existing Moorman and Altgens photos, in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.

And so on, through all the photos and films. Each photo and film, as it came to light, would need to be matched not only to each corresponding element of the Zapruder film but also to each existing photo and film.

Paul: if you want to make your theory credible, please describe the process in detail, for each photo and film, and for each matching element. How long did it take to work out precisely what needed to be altered in each image? How, exactly, were the alterations made in each image? How long did it take, and how many people were required, to make the alterations in each image?

You'll find that the common-sense explanations for those supposed anomalies will be infinitely more credible than the detailed descriptions you come up with.

Then there's the complication of how to deal with other images, not yet discovered. Finally, we arrive back at the question Paul (and other 'everything is a fake' believers) don't seem to have an answer for. How could the film-faking conspirators be sure that a home movie or photograph, containing proof that the Zapruder film was faked, would not come to light in the future?

The film-faking conspiracy Paul has described simply could not have happened.

[Paul Bacon]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I think so too.  Horne I believe is the one who mentioned frames cut out for "debris removal".  The extent of the explosion Brugioni saw, what splattered Hargis and the other motorcycle cop and the driver of the follow up car?  I have to wonder what else they might have shown in terms of head movement.

If I remember correctly Horne also mentioned removal of these frames speeding up the perceived back and to the left sequence.

Indeed Ron.

Doug also suggested the Z film was shot at 48 fps.  All kinds of data: head movement, exit debris, reactions of other occupants, limo speed, shot sequence, etc. could have been removed and still present a coherent film.

And to Jeremy, there were (3) copies (possibly 4) and one original already in existance by Friday afternoon.  Pretty hard to make a case that the film was accidentally destroyed when there are already four or five copies floating about.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Paul Bacon
clarity

[David G. Healy]

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Paul has constructed a far-fetched and ridiculously complex structure out of essentially nothing but his imagination. How has he managed this?

It's because the methodology used by Paul, and by other 'everything is a fake' believers, is faulty:

- A small subset of the relevant witnesses reported something anomalous, so it must have happened!
- A poor-quality reproduction of an image contains anomalies, so the image must have been altered!
- A document mentions something anomalous, so it must be accurate!

But people are fallible. They can make mistakes when filling in forms and other documents. Witnesses can make mistakes when recalling anything, let alone brief, unexpected and traumatic events such as seeing the president get shot. Witnesses to anything are even more likely to make mistakes when the events they are recalling took place years earlier. Images too are fallible, simply due to the laws of physics. Reproductions of the analogue films and photos taken in 1963 will very often generate anomalous artefacts that weren't there in the original.

Anomalies are worth spotting, because they can in theory lead to a reappraisal of the evidence. But almost always they don't. They are just mistakes: in images, written documents, and recollections. When you find an anomaly, you need to do the rational thing: see if you can come up with a common-sense, everyday explanation for that anomaly. Close to one hundred percent of the time, you will find that a simple, credible explanation exists. When you find one, use it.

Paul's enormous conspiracy relies on anomalies. A handful of people claimed to have seen something vaguely like the Zapruder film on TV in the first few days after the assassination! Wow! Someone in the CIA recalled something several decades after the event! Amazing!

And this guy was corroborated by a colleague! Incredible! And the colleague admitted that he was suffering from dementia! That makes him even more believable! Some people claimed they saw the car moving into the left-hand lane! That means it must have happened!

There are so many anomalies! Surely they can't all be worthless? Yes, they can, easily. No matter how many anomalous witnesses (or anomalous blobs in a photo) you have assembled, it's very likely that your alternative explanation, when it has been worked out in detail, will still be less plausible than any common-sense explanations for those anomalies.

The working-it-out-in-detail part is where things falls down. It's easy to state that such-and-such a film or photo was faked. It's not so easy to provide a plausible, detailed explanation of how it was done.

Paul's ginormous conspiracy requires the Zapruder film to have been faked. How was that done? The Bad Guys didn't just snap their fingers. Please describe the process in detail.

If the Zapruder film has been faked, all the films and photos that agree with it must also have been faked, as I pointed out earlier. How was that done? The Bad Guys didn't just snap their fingers. Please describe the process in detail.

One complicating factor is that the photographs and home movies that corroborate the Zapruder film came into existence at different times, and were made public at different times.

The Moorman photo, for example, was a Polaroid, and emerged as a finished picture approximately 50 seconds after the shutter button was pressed. It was seen by other people within minutes of the assassination. It was shown on NBC-TV at around 3.15pm. Copies were made within hours, and were in the possession of journalists. It appeared in a large number of newspapers the following day. In the photo, the police motorcyclists whose presence to the left of the car is a fake, according to Paul, occupy roughly a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.

The Altgens 7 photo, which completely contradicts Paul's claim that the presidential car moved to the left at the time of the fatal shot, was the next one to come to light. The negative was processed less than half an hour after the assassination. How was that faked, and made to match the already existing Moorman photo, in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.

The Muchmore film, which also shows the car clearly in the middle lane and not the left-hand lane, was in Muchmore's camera until the following Monday, when it was sold before being processed. It was shown on TV the next day. How was that faked, and made to match the already existing Moorman and Altgens photos, in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.

And so on, through all the photos and films. Each photo and film, as it came to light, would need to be matched not only to each corresponding element of the Zapruder film but also to each existing photo and film.

Paul: if you want to make your theory credible, please describe the process in detail, for each photo and film, and for each matching element. How long did it take to work out precisely what needed to be altered in each image? How, exactly, were the alterations made in each image? How long did it take, and how many people were required, to make the alterations in each image?

You'll find that the common-sense explanations for those supposed anomalies will be infinitely more credible than the detailed descriptions you come up with.

Then there's the complication of how to deal with other images, not yet discovered. Finally, we arrive back at the question Paul (and other 'everything is a fake' believers) don't seem to have an answer for. How could the film-faking conspirators be sure that a home movie or photograph, containing proof that the Zapruder film was faked, would not come to light in the future?

The film-faking conspiracy Paul has described simply could not have happened.

with all your spare time I'm sure you can provide us a verified, in-camera original film/photo for any *suspect* image-film you feel like challenging and it might be nice to show us the correct image, eh?

Oh, and explain why film/photo effects can't be applied to the photo and, if they were applied, why are they wrong or misleading.

Once you've done the above then actual film-photo analysts here and about can verify any alleged time lines. Thanks!

by my reckoning, the alteration folks probably had until late Feb '64 to complete changes to the Z-film. That's the date I believe Shaneyfelt formerly previewed the Z-film (in motion) to the entire, seated WC. 

Paul's suggestion that multiple alteration(s) more than likely occurred is correct, it's indeed possible changes may have occurred up to 1975 (and even later).

So again, get yourself formal verification and authentication, certification of any, any film/photo related to Dealey Plaza 11/22/1964. Match it up to a "disputed" image/film that's out in public or your imagination.

Then, Litwin (sp.) and you can pound the drum--till then, enjoy getting out without a mask, safely of course...

Edited May 8, 2021 by David G. Healy
because I can't write well?

[John Butler]

David,

This is from your work.

How difficult would it be to simply change the interior contents of the cab of the p. limo?  Let's say with film from another film or from an earlier part of the Zapruder film (Zapruder Gap) on the motorcade route.  How easy would that be to substitute and change what we see in the cab of the p. limo?  Then, add a few touches such as the Hollywood black patch or the blow up of the head wound? 

105+ witnesses said shooting occurred elsewhere, in front of the TSBD mostly.  This would reposition the assassination from in front of the TSBD so that Lee Harvey Oswald could be blamed for a rear head shot from the TSBD where the event actually happened earlier.  Change testimony or coerce witnesses and you have supportive data for the film. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by John Butler

[Tony Krome]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

105+ witnesses said shooting occurred elsewhere, in front of the TSBD mostly.

There's a cross on Elm St. Appears to be in front of the TSBD. Maybe thats what they meant;

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@32.7792381,-96.8084955,3a,75y,7.32h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sng3J4iVoTPsA6IBDehU6eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

[David G. Healy]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

David,

This is from your work.

How difficult would it be to simply change the interior contents of the cab of the p. limo?  Let's say with film from another film or from an earlier part of the Zapruder film (Zapruder Gap) on the motorcade route.  How easy would that be to substitute and change what we see in the cab of the p. limo?  Then, add a few touches such as the Hollywood black patch or the blow up of the head wound? 

105+ witnesses said shooting occurred elsewhere, in front of the TSBD mostly.  This would reposition the assassination from in front of the TSBD so that Lee Harvey Oswald could be blamed for a rear head shot from the TSBD where the event actually happened earlier.  Change testimony or coerce witnesses and you have supportive data for the film. 

*nothing* "is easy". Removing material such as brain matter, which in this case would all be on the background layer. Adding right side skull eruption,  skull skin flap plus rear head wound cover would be the foreground layeris pretty simple stuff for the optical lab pro/matte painter. 

Covering the rear head wound blowout would be very simple for Hollywood types, more contrast would be especially after Z-313.

These types of  effects are not a Star Wars production...

Wholesale inside (unlike above) the limo changes would be very difficult and would not pass the smell test.

And, for debris removal, I suspect frames need NOT be removed.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by David G. Healy
add to.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul Bacon writes:

Quote

All kinds of data: head movement, exit debris, reactions of other occupants, limo speed, shot sequence, etc. could have been removed

I'd imagine that pretty much anything could have been removed, in theory, given the right tools and sufficient time. But why assume that any of this data was there in the first place? I showed earlier that there's no reason to assume that backwards-flying "exit debris" would have been captured in the film. What reason is there to assume that any of the other supposedly incriminating data were captured in the film? If the only evidence for them is anomalous witness statements and the like, we can discard them, for reasons I've already given.

Even if sufficient time and appropriate tools were available, and even if it was possible to make Zapruder Film Mark II consistent with whatever other films and photos already existed, problem A remains:

How could the conspirators ensure that their fakery wouldn't be exposed by other films and photos, yet to be discovered?

Quote

there were (3) copies (possibly 4) and one original already in existance by Friday afternoon.  Pretty hard to make a case that the film was accidentally destroyed when there are already four or five copies floating about.

Not only that, but the four or five versions weren't all stored at the same location. To cover up the existence of copies and the dispersal of the copies, a good deal of arm-twisting would have been needed, whether the film had been altered or not.

Problem B remains: why go to all the trouble of altering it when you could just destroy it?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David G. Healy writes:

Quote

I'm sure you can provide us a verified, in-camera original film/photo for any *suspect* image-film you feel like challenging and it might be nice to show us the correct image, eh? ... explain why film/photo effects can't be applied to the photo and, if they were applied, why are they wrong or misleading. ... get yourself formal verification and authentication, certification of any, any film/photo related to Dealey Plaza 11/22/1964. Match it up to a "disputed" image/film that's out in public

If I've interpreted this correctly, David is asking me to find a copy of the film that contradicts the one we all know and love, and point out inconsistencies between the two, and explain why these inconsistencies couldn't have happened.

Why? It's David, not me, who thinks there are 'disputed' images out in public. What has any of that got to do with the point I was making?

If David is claiming that the Zapruder film is faked, it's up to him to:

- tell us exactly which parts of the film have been altered (everyone who thinks the film is a fake seems to have a different opinion about which parts were altered, which is a pretty good sign that it's all just speculation);
- describe in detail how such fakery was achieved;
- and tell us why we should accept fakery when a far simpler explanation is available.

The simpler explanation is, of course, that witness statements are often mistaken, and any such statements that contradict what we see in the Zapruder film (and in other images) can be dismissed as worthless anomalies.

We've seen that Paul Rigby's witnesses, who claimed that the car pulled to the left and stopped, cannot be correct. Their statements are worthless anomalies. Does David Healy agree with Paul that the car pulled to the left? If so, how would he explain the fact that three other home movies and two photographs corroborate what the Zapruder film shows? Paul implied earlier that he thought all the films and photos were faked. Does David agree with Paul about this? If so, perhaps he could provide us with a credible explanation of how this huge task was achieved, and why we shouldn't just discard the witness evidence instead.

Quote

Paul's suggestion that multiple alteration(s) more than likely occurred is correct, it's indeed possible changes may have occurred up to 1975 (and even later).

This is crazy. Quite apart from the practical problem of making one fake after another, and the fact that the film contains no inconsistencies with the other films and photos, how would the fakers have got around the problem of all the bootleg copies that were in circulation long before 1975? How would they explain away all the inevitable inconsistencies?

Related to the problem of inconsistencies between films, perhaps David could have a go at telling us how the conspirators could have ensured that no film or photograph would have come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?

[Paul Rigby]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

David,

This is from your work.

How difficult would it be to simply change the interior contents of the cab of the p. limo?  Let's say with film from another film or from an earlier part of the Zapruder film (Zapruder Gap) on the motorcade route.  How easy would that be to substitute and change what we see in the cab of the p. limo?  Then, add a few touches such as the Hollywood black patch or the blow up of the head wound? 

105+ witnesses said shooting occurred elsewhere, in front of the TSBD mostly.  This would reposition the assassination from in front of the TSBD so that Lee Harvey Oswald could be blamed for a rear head shot from the TSBD where the event actually happened earlier.  Change testimony or coerce witnesses and you have supportive data for the film. 

Alas, John, no shooting took place in the approach to, or during, the turn from Houston on to Elm, despite the fact that this location would have provided much great plausibility for both shooting scenarios potentially available – a single assassin or an ambush.  

In the first, the twin issues of the patsy’s marksmanship and choice of weapon would have been greatly diminished, if not vanquished all together. Deploying the second alternative, a plot in which Oswald worked in conjunction with “fellow” agents of, say, Castro and/or Krushchev*, the headlines write themselves: America’s Petit-Clamart! Dallas’ Bastien-Thiry executed in desperate cinema shoot-out! 

So why didn’t the plotters select this much better site? The answer is obvious: the credibility of the shooting scenario was subordinated to the need to minimise the number of potential witnesses and cameras. 

In fairness to you, it should be note that the plotters did briefly utilize the fiction of a shooting sequence which commenced on Houston, though only for the purpose of attempting to reconcile the Z fake with the import of the Doctors’ press conference at Parkland. Here’s how the CIA briefers spun it, in stages: 

Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston: 

John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20: 

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more. 

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests. 

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events. 

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.” 

In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm: 

Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1: 

“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy. 

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.  

At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle. 

The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.” 

And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm: 

Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963: 

“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.  

Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it.” 

Given that the film-as-film could not be reshown while the above delineated process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony with the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken, you now have the explanation for why the first version of the Z fake shown on TV (26 November 1963) failed to contain the Houston Street sequence described the day before by Rather; and was then suppressed on the very same day it was shown. It seems highly likely to me that the detailed, if thoughly bogus, briefings plainly afforded Herbers, Snider and Mandel emanated from among those plotters intent upon suppression and the head snap reversal. They were, after all, classic episodic CIA fictions of precisely the kind we find issued – by amazing coincidence, among others, Hal Hendrix - following the Bay of Pigs landing. 

*And if you don’t like that combination of conspirators, they have others...

 

 

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

Alas, John, no shooting took place in the approach to, or during, the turn from Houston on to Elm, despite the fact that this location would have provided much great plausibility for both shooting scenarios potentially available – a single assassin or an ambush.  

Thanks Paul,

I have to disagree based on witness testimony.  I surveyed all of the witness testimony in Dealey Plaza.  I asked a basic question about their testimony.  Where was the p. limo when you heard shooting?  Most of the witnesses could provide and answer, but there was a small number said they didn't know.  105 witnesses said the heard shooting while the p. limo was in front of the TSBD.  Of that 105 witnesses a small number said Main Street or the Houston and Main intersection.  Admittedly this is a minority view with about 20% (105) of all witnesses.  It is enough in my opinion to question what went on in Dealey Plaza.

Somewhere in the past records of the forum is a word doc and a pdf I posted listing these witnesses and what they said.  If you find that and read what they said then you will understand that most of what we know about the event in Dealey Plaza is questionable.  Those records establish reasonable doubt. 

This is the area 4th and 3rd floor witnesses spoke of as under the trees:

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

*nothing* "is easy".

Thanks David,

A few years back James Fetzner, yourself, Jack White, and John Costella produced a series of videos on the assassination.  If I am remembering correctly, John Costella said the Zapruder film was technically perfect with a few errors.  I have been trying to figure that one since John Costella said that.  My solution was just change the contents inside the cab of the p. limo.  

If I am reading your answer correctly then that would be hard to do.

7 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Wholesale inside (unlike above) the limo changes would be very difficult and would not pass the smell test.

And, for debris removal, I suspect frames need NOT be removed.

About the head wound debris?  I haven't read anywhere that the SS security vehicle was covered with gore.  Jackie Kennedy remained basically untouched by the head wound ejection.  A motorcycle policemen riding to the side was hit by the head wound spray of material.  That leaves a narrow angle for that mess to fly off in a backward direction.

Could you comment on that and removing any brain material and blood from the trunk?  Thanks for replying.

Edited May 9, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

8 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

There's a cross on Elm St. Appears to be in front of the TSBD. Maybe thats what they meant;

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@32.7792381,-96.8084955,3a,75y,7.32h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sng3J4iVoTPsA6IBDehU6eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Tony,

I was in Dealey Plaza in 2015.  I met Robert Groden and crew.  Groden painted an "X" in the street for years in defiance of the Dallas officials.  That particular "X" looks closer then Groden's.  But, on examining this photo they may be the same area.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Paul Rigby]

The Dullesian approach to imperfection:

"As I say, if you stopped always and think of all the consequences of all the actions you take, you do nothing. This wasn’t a world in which one could do nothing. It wasn’t a do-nothing world."

 

 

[David G. Healy]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[...]

Does David Healy agree with Paul that the car pulled to the left? If so, how would he explain the fact that three other home movies and two photographs corroborate what the Zapruder film shows?

dgh: put them side by side and show us the folly. Your making a lot of noise but, alas, where's the BEEF***

 

Paul implied earlier that he thought all the films and photos were faked. Does David agree with Paul about this? If so, perhaps he could provide us with a credible explanation of how this huge task was achieved, and why we shouldn't just discard the witness evidence instead.

dgh: of course some photo's/film's are faked, the conspiracist's have had neigh on 60 years to "fake" photo's. All you need to do is deliver the in-camera original NIX film (whom Nix's daughter says the film has disappeared. The Zapruder in-camera original film, best of luck with that one... as Gary Mack told me years ago: "the Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of another courtroom."

Now what your assignment is, put together what DP 11/22/63 films/photos (which you won't be able to verify and/or authenticate (nor will you be able to show lineage), cite and prove what the films frame rate is (they're all over the net), you can find on the internet... 

Then we'll chat about DP film/photo inconsistencies.***

This is crazy.

dgh: not nearly as crazy as the events of 11/22/63. Or, suggesting film/video compositing pro's what can or can NOT be done in an optical lfilm ab and/or 4K image editing/compositing suites.****

Quite apart from the practical problem of making one fake after another

dgh: and those are?

Here, it's Mother's Day and I'm real busy, explain one simple thing to me, clearly and without equivocation: what was KODAK-Dallas's true intent in using in-came film stock for the alleged 3 Zapruder film copies instead of *dupe* stock. Now we have 4 Zapruder films 3 of them can be construed (by the faint at heart as Zaprder in-camera film masters. And this is before all films/photos of the day found there way to broadcast facilities for airing or "printing" or, KODAK New York...***

 

 and the fact that the film contains no inconsistencies with the other films and photos, how would the fakers have got around the problem of all the bootleg copies that were in circulation long before 1975? How would they explain away all the inevitable inconsistencies?

Related to the problem of inconsistencies between films, perhaps David could have a go at telling us how the conspirators could have ensured that no film or photograph would have come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?

dgh: blah, blab, blab where's Bill Miller when I need a foil?

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by David G. Healy