The Zfilm, The copies and The Geraldo

[David G. Healy]

33 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

We probably agree that it’s certainly a more plausible theory that most of it isn’t altered. Occam’s Razor isn’t always right. If you were on the cover up team, you may bank on that human investigative process using that logic. 

I’ll leave that to somebody here to make that case, and you can disprove them. 
 

My video editing experience is only in using very modern techniques and software, though the principals often come from the original rudimentary techniques. On a fundamental level; video is lots of still frames and each can be edited, spliced, etc. Today, a complete alteration would be easy for editors but, back then, they had very poor resolution going for them, ie alteration could he more crude and it would still look authentic to the layman. 
 

If you have used Adobe After Effects and/or similar type software, you've used the very software that shut down the optical printing houses in NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran and a few other film centers around the world...

[David G. Healy]

10 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

 

I think it’s safe to say multiple copies of the Zfilm were made on day 1…. the 22nd Nov., mere hours after the event, ie. later that day. These copies then went their separate ways to their nefarious destinations. 
Was there enough time (using cranky 1963 technology-scalpels,cut n paste,matte insertions etc.) to alter the master copy before copies were made, when it was in Zap’s possession the entire time?

To my knowledge (not the best), no two different Zfilms have come to light. With multiple copies out there and alterations aplenty this seems strange…..

 

This is a 1975 Geraldo/Groden screenshot. (Search YouTube “Geraldo Zapruder” for the entire slot-interesting) 

This is the mid 90’s cleaned up version.Wouldn’t any 60’s style alterations have been massively apparent during this clean up? 

In a nutshell, I think there wasn’t enough time to alter the original and if it was altered it would be apparent with differing copies or have been discovered in the 90’s clean up. 
There, I said it.

said what?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

If you have used Adobe After Effects and/or similar type software, you've used the very software that shut down the optical printing houses in NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran and a few other film centers around the world...

The principles seem the same. I use Final Cut Pro X and occasionally DaVinci Resolve. They are all similar. I can see how affects could be achieved manually, without the benefits of software. 

[Chris Davidson]

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

How sure are you that these two films are synchronized? (To other readers: All that needs to be known for synchronization is the frame rates of the cameras.)

If you are certain, then right here you have proof that at least one of the films has been altered! Probably the Zapruder. Because the two films start at precisely the same time, with Jackie on the trunk. But when the end of Nix is reached, Jackie is still on the trunk in Nix but fully inside the passenger compartment (though not seated) in Zapruder.

Gosh... it's almost as though a bunch of frames have been removed from Zapruder!  😋

Somebody needs to show this to the un-alterationists.

 

Sandy,

Watch the beginning frame in each film before it starts advancing.

Clint's right leg is hanging off the bumper. After two frames elapsed in each, no more hanging off.

It's rather obvious that, both of those points are synced.

No need to provide a frame rate(although I like trying) for any film really, just show with the existing films how those rates are incorrect or the film is altered or what have you.

Identify common occurrences among the films and then proceed with disqualifying.

Allow others to provide the BS info.

For instance, Myers "frame for frame" sync info.

 

 

 

 

[Sean Coleman]

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

said what?

Sorry should have put text before screen grab

[Sean Coleman]

Most alteration suggestions seem to relate to various heads,legs,bodies,trees,bushes,kerbs etc. being anomalous which does cast doubts on the film’s originality. But it’s more the frames that were left in that cast my doubt on alteration- JFK’s headsnap, the throat wound, head moving back and to the left, and even Rosemary Willis. They didn’t even blob a bit of black paint on the brake lights in Nix-probably the easiest alteration of all, even I could have managed that.

So yes, there is potential evidence of alteration/potential evidence of 1960’s film in a 1960’s camera filmed by an amateur-that may show anomalies and artifacts.

But none of them relate to actual JFK being shot? Just background stuff dodging about?

And wouldn’t the 90’s clean up have revealed a clumsy 60’s alteration?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

But it’s more the frames that were left in that cast my doubt on alteration- JFK’s headsnap, the throat wound, head moving back and to the left, and even Rosemary Willis. They didn’t even blob a bit of black paint on the brake lights in Nix-probably the easiest alteration of all, even I could have managed that.

I think that’s a good process. What we don’t know is what the decided on objectives were and the time constraints involved. 
 

Looking at it with a keen eye, we think they haven’t done a good job of hiding the widely accepted concept of multiple shooters. Is that how most people felt when initially seeing the video when finally released? The impression was more likely of shock/horror and anger towards Ozzie. If that was the case, it did its job. Ultimately, as long as the media/govt shielded the public from the truth for long enough, it wouldn’t matter. That’s what has happened. 
 

The snapping back of the head looks telling to people who are hunters, most people aren’t. The snapping back of the head looks a incriminating to us being open minded and looking for conspiracy, it doesn’t to those who have tremendous faith in government and the legal system. 
 

As for the brake lights, in an emergency or when shocked or startled by something, most of us drivers hit the brakes, its instinctive, normal, we are trained to do it. The public expect that to happen. The SS were trained to floor it, we expect that. Any neutral might think the braking is a natural response, ie not suspicious, as they aren’t SS trained people. 
 

As i’ve said on the other current thread; they had a limited timeframe to cover up what they could and predict how this would play out. Even with the most gifted think tanks of intellectuals, it wouldn’t be even nearly possible to predict all future lines of investigations and challenges the official narrative would face. It’s highly likely that besides a dead JFK, that the shooting didn’t go exactly to plan, and that they had to make on the spot decisions. Explaining Connolly’s multiple wounds would be an example, or what to do about a potential windscreen bullet hole etc. 
 

18 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

And wouldn’t the 90’s clean up have revealed a clumsy 60’s alteration?

Depends on how clumsily it was done initially and whether those enhancing the originals were looking for anything suspicious. If you were a polisher of precious stones and were given a diamond to clean, would you be looking for flaws in the stone if De Beers had told you it was worth $20.000? Not really. In most cases people unquestioningly take things for granted. Bearing in mind, we’re talking about extremely low res footage too. 
 

Some of this I could try to argue the other way. We have to incorporate human nature and psychology into the equation, as well as the evidence in front of us.   

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think that’s a good process. What we don’t know is what the decided on objectives were and the time constraints involved. 
 

Looking at it with a keen eye, we think they haven’t done a good job of hiding the widely accepted concept of multiple shooters. Is that how most people felt when initially seeing the video when finally released? The impression was more likely of shock/horror and anger towards Ozzie. If that was the case, it did its job. Ultimately, as long as the media/govt shielded the public from the truth for long enough, it wouldn’t matter. That’s what has happened. 
 

The snapping back of the head looks telling to people who are hunters, most people aren’t. The snapping back of the head looks a incriminating to us being open minded and looking for conspiracy, it doesn’t to those who have tremendous faith in government and the legal system. 
 

As for the brake lights, in an emergency or when shocked or startled by something, most of us drivers hit the brakes, its instinctive, normal, we are trained to do it. The public expect that to happen. The SS were trained to floor it, we expect that. Any neutral might think the braking is a natural response, ie not suspicious, as they aren’t SS trained people. 
 

As i’ve said on the other current thread; they had a limited timeframe to cover up what they could and predict how this would play out. Even with the most gifted think tanks of intellectuals, it wouldn’t be even nearly possible to predict all future lines of investigations and challenges the official narrative would face. It’s highly likely that besides a dead JFK, that the shooting didn’t go exactly to plan, and that they had to make on the spot decisions. Explaining Connolly’s multiple wounds would be an example, or what to do about a potential windscreen bullet hole etc. 
 

Depends on how clumsily it was done initially and whether those enhancing the originals were looking for anything suspicious. If you were a polisher of precious stones and were given a diamond to clean, would you be looking for flaws in the stone if De Beers had told you it was worth $20.000? Not really. In most cases people unquestioningly take things for granted. Bearing in mind, we’re talking about extremely low res footage too. 
 

Some of this I could try to argue the other way. We have to incorporate human nature and psychology into the equation, as well as the evidence in front of us.   

Chris, you are incorrect in your assumption the public was angry at Oswald upon first viewing the film. The film was first shown the public (if only a small bit of the public) during the Shaw trial. Although the jury acquitted Shaw, they said they thought there had been a conspiracy. Why? The Z-film. It was years before it was finally shown on TV. Once shown, people were horrified. Not at Oswald. Most thought the film suggested a shot from the front and were angry as F that the film had been held back by Life Magazine and the government. The result? A second investigation: the HSCA. 

The Zapruder film has been, and will continue to be, Exhibit 1A for a conspiracy. And the idea that it's a fake was first pushed by people prone to believing the moon-landing was fake and the families of murdered children are "crisis actors". To me, saying it is fake is like saying all the info linking Jack Ruby to the FBI or mob is fake. It's like saying the pamphlets printed up by Oswald sharing Guy Bannister's address are fake. Or that the photo of Oswald with Ferrie is fake. Or that the tests performed for the WC which showed the unlikelihood of a full-velocity M/C bullet looking like CE 399 after hitting a cadaver's wrist are fake. Why? Why would the evil guv'ment fake evidence that suggests a conspiracy? Was it (the evil guv'ment) trying to force Johnson's hand and declare WW3? 

People need to make up their minds as to why the evidence was faked, if it was faked. If they choose to believe it was faked to conceal a conspiracy, then they have to explain why so much of it suggests a conspiracy. And if they choose to believe it was faked to suggest a conspiracy, when it was really just Lee all along, well, then, they need to erect monuments to Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren, who bravely defied the evil guv'ment by covering up the conspiracy so clearly suggested by the evidence. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Chris, you are incorrect in your assumption the public was angry at Oswald upon first viewing the film. The film was first shown the public (if only a small bit of the public) during the Shaw trial. Although the jury acquitted Shaw, they said they thought there had been a conspiracy. Why? The Z-film. It was years before it was finally shown on TV. Once shown, people were horrified. Not at Oswald. Most thought the film suggested a shot from the front and were angry as F that the film had been held back by Life Magazine and the government. The result? A second investigation: the HSCA. 

The Zapruder film has been, and will continue to be, Exhibit 1A for a conspiracy. And the idea that it's a fake was first pushed by people prone to believing the moon-landing was fake and the families of murdered children are "crisis actors". To me, saying it is fake is like saying all the info linking Jack Ruby to the FBI or mob is fake. It's like saying the pamphlets printed up by Oswald sharing Guy Bannister's address are fake. Or that the photo of Oswald with Ferrie is fake. Or that the tests performed for the WC which showed the unlikelihood of a full-velocity M/C bullet looking like CE 399 after hitting a cadaver's wrist are fake. Why? Why would the evil guv'ment fake evidence that suggests a conspiracy? Was it (the evil guv'ment) trying to force Johnson's hand and declare WW3? 

People need to make up their minds as to why the evidence was faked, if it was faked. If they choose to believe it was faked to conceal a conspiracy, then they have to explain why so much of it suggests a conspiracy. And if they choose to believe it was faked to suggest a conspiracy, when it was really just Lee all along, well, then, they need to erect monuments to Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren, who bravely defied the evil guv'ment by covering up the conspiracy so clearly suggested by the evidence. 

Hi Pat, 

Are you taking me out of context here? I think you are. We're talking about a courtroom that's purpose is to concentrate hard, whilst having a prosecution team trying to show the death of president as conspiracy. That is a very different thing to the entire population watching it briefly on a TV show or news network, right? I'll give you an example which may help. A couple of years ago NBC showed footage or Syria being bombed/explosions on the evening news. 99.9% of people watched and believed without question that they were watching Syria in conflict. After the fact, someone else spotted that this wasn't indeed Syria that they were watching, it was a gun shock inside the USA with fired roaring etc. NBC apologised and claimed a mix up of footage somewhere in the background. Of course it wasn't a mix up, they just showed the footage as they assumed everyone would be too dumb to realise. If you'd had that NBC gun show footage in a court room for days or weeks, being scrutinised as representing something else, undoubtably there would have been many sceptics. I'll reiterate, perhaps more clearly, that most of the people seeing this footage flashed before them in a blink would not have picked up on the intricacies. You get get into psychological reasons why too, that's a deeper conversation. 

Do you think you might be taking things at the extremes? I mean, because someone believes the film was altered, it doesn't mean the whole thing has been altered and that none of it is original. Surely, it's poor taste to lump people in who have doubts about the authenticity of every frame of the Z film with flat earthers, the moon landing guys etc etc? That's a poor mans argument to just call the opposition mentally ill or delusional because they don't agree. The truth is, neither you or I can say what the planners/cover up team thought would be the best course of action. It's even possible that they covered something up that none of the researchers have even thought of in almost 60 years. It's possible they covered some things up that really had no relevance, as even hours or days later they need to do so was redundant. 

Let's not forget, nobody has been proven to have killed JFK. There is equal responsibility on all of the public to prove who killed him and how, if they care. You can't sit and suggest the onus is on those who disagree with you to prove it in a court of law or whatever else. The people who believe it was altered will just say "look at these glitches, and inconsistencies, prove how they happened" and you'll say, you don't know. That still doesn't make anyone right. Nor does finding a motive for everything conceivable that you're seeing in this chain of actions. 







 

[Steven Kossor]

The reasons for the Zfilm alterations were lying on the cutting room floor before they were collected and destroyed forever.  All we have to go on is the "finished product" and it leaves tantalizing evidence of the editing that was done.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider that the stuff that was removed was more damning than the rearward/left motion of JFK's head, more damning than the slowdown/stopping of the limousine, more damning than the persistent brake lights while the car is supposedly moving forward.  What could that be?  The answer might be found by revisiting the evidence and some of the discredited speculation about "what happened in the car" between Houston Street and Parkland hospital.

 

[Pat Speer]

Ok. Let me clarify.

My point is not that no alteration of the Z-film happened, or could have happened. My point is that dwelling on it is extremely counter-productive. Once upon a time, there was this thought within the research "community" that we were moving towards consensus. The erratic and at times incoherent theories holding that the evidence was mostly faked proved a major distraction, and sure enough, the 50th anniversary was largely a victory dance for the Oswald did-its. I watched this unfold on this forum. Tink Thompson joined the forum to help shoot down the alterationist crowd. They responded by claiming he was a secret LNer, and it was guaranteed he'd come out on the 50th claiming it was Oswald after all. It was this "us vs. the rest" attitude amongst these people that led to a schism on this forum, and in the "community" as a whole. Fetzer was so militant he got banned from presenting at Lancer Conferences, or appearing on Black Op radio. He would probably say he was banned from this forum but as I recall he was simply forced to submit his posts for approval before they would be posted. This was not due to content. It came from his constant abuse of fellow members and his constantly trying to post 9/11, moon landing and Sandy Hook conspiracy theories on the JFK assassination Forum. (As I recall his claim no jet flew into the Pentagon led at least one long-time member to quit the forum.) In any event, I don't really think any of those currently discussing the possible alteration of the Z-film as "alterationists". But I think it's important that those currently discussing this topic realize that this topic was discussed to death (and the near-death of the forum) years ago. I think it's also important that those assuming frames were removed should realize that the "top expert" on the Z-film cited back in the day was John Costella, and Costello specifically ruled this out. He said either the whole film was faked or it was legit. Of course, that didn't stop Fetzer--the one claiming he was the "top expert"--from claiming the film was edited to remove the limo stop, and Chaney's racing up to the lead car, etc. That's what I mean by erratic and incoherent, by the way. A lot of the theories revolving around alteration cite this expert or that expert, and then totally disregard what they had to say. Not to be insulting, but it seems clear to me it's simply more fun to feel like you're on the cutting edge of research than actually do any research. 

As some of you know, I've done some heavy lifting on this case. I have a whole chapter about traumatic brain injuries, which strongly suggest if not proves that the bullet exploding Kennedy's skull struck him on the top of his skull, and not low on the back of his skull. But I'm not aware of anyone wanting to believe the fatal bullet hit him on the left temple, or forehead, reading this material. Unfortunately, it's much more fun to say the autopsy photos are fake than it is to acknowledge that the official evidence is clear-cut evidence for more than one shooter.

That's my two cents, anyhow. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. Let me clarify.

My point is not that no alteration of the Z-film happened, or could have happened. My point is that dwelling on it is extremely counter-productive. Once upon a time, there was this thought within the research "community" that we were moving towards consensus. The erratic and at times incoherent theories holding that the evidence was mostly faked proved a major distraction, and sure enough, the 50th anniversary was largely a victory dance for the Oswald did-its. I watched this unfold on this forum. Tink Thompson joined the forum to help shoot down the alterationist crowd. They responded by claiming he was a secret LNer, and it was guaranteed he'd come out on the 50th claiming it was Oswald after all. It was this "us vs. the rest" attitude amongst these people that led to a schism on this forum, and in the "community" as a whole. Fetzer was so militant he got banned from presenting at Lancer Conferences, or appearing on Black Op radio. He would probably say he was banned from this forum but as I recall he was simply forced to submit his posts for approval before they would be posted. This was not due to content. It came from his constant abuse of fellow members and his constantly trying to post 9/11, moon landing and Sandy Hook conspiracy theories on the JFK assassination Forum. (As I recall his claim no jet flew into the Pentagon led at least one long-time member to quit the forum.) In any event, I don't really think any of those currently discussing the possible alteration of the Z-film as "alterationists". But I think it's important that those currently discussing this topic realize that this topic was discussed to death (and the near-death of the forum) years ago. I think it's also important that those assuming frames were removed should realize that the "top expert" on the Z-film cited back in the day was John Costella, and Costello specifically ruled this out. He said either the whole film was faked or it was legit. Of course, that didn't stop Fetzer--the one claiming he was the "top expert"--from claiming the film was edited to remove the limo stop, and Chaney's racing up to the lead car, etc. That's what I mean by erratic and incoherent, by the way. A lot of the theories revolving around alteration cite this expert or that expert, and then totally disregard what they had to say. Not to be insulting, but it seems clear to me it's simply more fun to feel like you're on the cutting edge of research than actually do any research. 

As some of you know, I've done some heavy lifting on this case. I have a whole chapter about traumatic brain injuries, which strongly suggest if not proves that the bullet exploding Kennedy's skull struck him on the top of his skull, and not low on the back of his skull. But I'm not aware of anyone wanting to believe the fatal bullet hit him on the left temple, or forehead, reading this material. Unfortunately, it's much more fun to say the autopsy photos are fake than it is to acknowledge that the official evidence is clear-cut evidence for more than one shooter.

That's my two cents, anyhow. 

I think pretty much all of that is fair comment, Pat. I can feel your frustration in the words. There is already enough without needing some of the things you are mentioning. Peoples motivations vary so much. Some people just want to bicker and be right. It’s also the greatest whodunit of all time. It’s very intriguing. 
 

It may put some people off seeing other topics discussed and it may devalue the cause to some degree. MSM has chosen to lump the JFKA in with all of these other potential conspiracies, even the absurd ones. You get tarred with that brush regardless. There are many that think the assassinations of the 1960’s were connected. Is it fair to talk about them? JFKA spills into Vietnam, Nixon, pretty soon we are at Iran Contra, gulf wars and 9/11. If ultimately the machinations of power are responsible, it’s probably fair cop to talk about them. I certainly have, i can see your perspective. 
 

Is the biggest issue with the JFKA investigation that 58 years has been spent trying to work out who shot from where? And not who gave the order? And benefitted. Which is something like the line that Donald Sutherland says in JFK (1994). 
 

Let me thank you for all of your hard work over the decades doing the research. The later arrivals like myself have all of the benefits of your work and others. We’re very lucky and there should be some gratitude. The reason I chipped into the forum fund wasn’t because I intended to be using the forum or commenting regularly but, simply because I didn’t to see the wealth of content lost. 
 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

Surely, it's poor taste to lump people in who have doubts about the authenticity of every frame of the Z film with flat earthers, the moon landing guys etc etc?

It isn't poor taste at all. The two groups are remarkably similar in several ways.

Firstly, both groups use the same inadequate method: amateurish anomaly-spotting. They spot something in the evidence that kinda looks a bit strange to them; they can't think of a plausible explanation; and they jump to the most ridiculously far-fetched conclusion they can think of.

Sometimes this is because they lack the relevant technical expertise. But not always. As we have seen on another current thread, straightforward explanations for these anomalies usually aren't difficult to find, for those who are open-minded enough to make the effort. Sadly, both groups of people often simply lack the motivation to question their own beliefs.

Secondly, both groups have been trying for years and have failed to prove their case. Just look at all the threads on this forum that have been devoted to the latest 'proof' that the Zapruder film, or this or that Dealey Plaza photo, were altered. None of these cases stand up. At best, all that these people are left with is the odd visual anomaly that doesn't yet have an explanation. Almost always, they don't even have that much.

This stuff has been going on for more than twenty years. One claim of fakery runs into the inevitable dead-end and fizzles out, only for another one to take its place. As Alex Wilson describes it, "and once again the circus comes trundling into town." People keep wasting their time with this stuff instead of doing productive research, probably because productive research is difficult and speculation is easy.

Thirdly, there is a certain amount of overlap between the different groups. Most famously, or infamously, the late Jack White thought the moon landings were faked; he thought the Zapruder film was a fake; he thought that no planes hit the World Trade Center; and he helped to dream up the notion that Oswald and his mother were part of an elaborate long-term doppelganger scheme that was set up for a reason that no-one has been able to work out.

If anything, the JFK assassination's 'everything is a fake' cult is even less rational than the moon-landings cult or the flat-earth cult. As Pat has pointed out, altering the Zapruder film into its current state is the last thing the authorities would have wanted to do (even in the unlikely event that they had been capable of doing it).

The Zapruder film is the item of physical evidence that most strongly indicates that more than one person shot JFK. If you discard the film, you instantly make the lone-nut theory much less implausible.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

It isn't poor taste at all. The two groups are remarkably similar in several ways.

Firstly, both groups use the same inadequate method: amateurish anomaly-spotting. They spot something in the evidence that kinda looks a bit strange to them; they can't think of a plausible explanation; and they jump to the most ridiculously far-fetched conclusion they can think of.

Sometimes this is because they lack the relevant technical expertise. But not always. As we have seen on another current thread, straightforward explanations for these anomalies usually aren't difficult to find, for those who are open-minded enough to make the effort. Sadly, both groups of people often simply lack the motivation to question their own beliefs.

Secondly, both groups have been trying for years and have failed to prove their case. Just look at all the threads on this forum that have been devoted to the latest 'proof' that the Zapruder film, or this or that Dealey Plaza photo, were altered. None of these cases stand up. At best, all that these people are left with is the odd visual anomaly that doesn't yet have an explanation. Almost always, they don't even have that much.

This stuff has been going on for more than twenty years. One claim of fakery runs into the inevitable dead-end and fizzles out, only for another one to take its place. As Alex Wilson describes it, "and once again the circus comes trundling into town." People keep wasting their time with this stuff instead of doing productive research, probably because productive research is difficult and speculation is easy.

Thirdly, there is a certain amount of overlap between the different groups. Most famously, or infamously, the late Jack White thought the moon landings were faked; he thought the Zapruder film was a fake; he thought that no planes hit the World Trade Center; and he helped to dream up the notion that Oswald and his mother were part of an elaborate long-term doppelganger scheme that was set up for a reason that no-one has been able to work out.

If anything, the JFK assassination's 'everything is a fake' cult is even less rational than the moon-landings cult or the flat-earth cult. As Pat has pointed out, altering the Zapruder film into its current state is the last thing the authorities would have wanted to do (even in the unlikely event that they had been capable of doing it).

The Zapruder film is the item of physical evidence that most strongly indicates that more than one person shot JFK. If you discard the film, you instantly make the lone-nut theory much less implausible.

I don't have skin in the game here, so let me ask you a few questions. 

- Why do you think you are struggling so much to debunk them? Is it because you are lacking the competencies to do it, or because you don't have the evidence? 

- You have been gaslighting members here and there. I don't think you believe they are "crazy" opinions, otherwise why would you be here debating them? That would make you crazy too, to be spending your time debating those not of a sound mind. I am not suggesting you, or them are crazy. 

- Do you think you question your own beliefs enough? You are putting yourself on a pedestal of superiority here. What is the compelling piece of evidence that makes you right? I am not asking for anecdotal or the subjective, just your proof. 

- While we are talking about anecdotal evidence, you're making the case about the crossover between conspiracy theories, some of them very far fetched (IMHO). You surely know there are hundreds of millions in the world that may believe JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy. I believe this is a growing number. The point is, you can't give two or 3 examples as if its representative of such a large body of people, your examples are a tiny percentile of a percentile. They hold no validity. To make this clearer, a lot of those people believe in a god, or supreme being. Some might find that even more far fetched than the CT's you mention. So, really what you should do is just focus on the point of contention, not worry about what their other interests are. All that matters is whether what they are saying has merit or not. 

- FYI I agree with your last line but, I've explained in other posts that it doesn't mean it isn't altered. You surely can separate those two ideas. You might disagree, which is fine and I won't begrudge you for it. 

- Are you worried about the reputation of JFKA research because of threads alleging alteration etc? 

As I have pointed out before, it's all good for you selling books. What isn't good for that is if you are attacking or gaslighting members, as if potential readers see the threads, it may put them off buying. 

[Jamey Flanagan]

I don't want you to get the opinion that I'm singling you out or attacking you specifically Pat, because that is certainly not the intention from me, but I just want to make sure I understood your post I just read a few seconds ago. You had talked about the autopsy photos and if I understood correctly then you are of the opinion that all of those authentic. Am I correct in that assessment, or am I just reading between the lines? There is one autopsy photo in particular that I cannot see in any way, shape, or form being even a minute representation of the truth. The photo I'm referring to is the one where the back of the president's head is completely intact and there is just the tiny "entrance" wound in the back. I'm just wondering if you think that particular picture is 100% authentic? It seems to contradict all the Parkland doctors' recollections as well as several in attendance at the Bethesda autopsy who all saw the big blowout in the occipital parietal region of the head. Now, if it's your contention that the picture was taken after a reconstruction job then I must say that was one hell of a reconstruction job they did on the back of his head, lol!