So is David Lifton's Final Charade just going to be lost to history?

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Longest post ever, surely wins a prize? 
An EF mug or pencil? 
Come on Sandy, rewards make people 😃 

You stickler types really crack me up. Persistently objecting to form when everyone the least bit familiar with your gig knows full well your objections are really to substance, but that you lack the data points to actually make a substantive attack. LOL! 

[Matt Allison]

The version posted above pretty clearly has been marked up; when zoomed in it looks like someone took a Sharpie to it. So that's obviously totally ****ing insane. But my question is this: why didn't the same mark-ups appear in the versions Tink Thompson used in 1967?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

The version posted above pretty clearly has been marked up; when zoomed in it looks like someone took a Sharpie to it. So that's obviously totally ****ing insane. But my question is this: why didn't the same mark-ups appear in the versions Tink Thompson used in 1967?

 

Matt,

In order to easily see that obvious black patch on the back of Kennedy's head, you need to scan the film on a color logarithmic scale.

Scientists and engineers routinely plot data on a logarithmic scale in order to be able to see a wide range of values on a single graph. Here is an example of a historic stock price, the top plotted on a regular, linear scale, and on the bottom the same data plotted on a logarithmic scale:

 

 

Notice on the regular, linear plot, that it is difficult to view fluctuations where the values are small... on the left end in this case. The logarithmic plot makes it easy to see those fluctuations.

The same is true with logarithmic scans of images. It makes it easier to see variations in the darker areas of the image. And thus we can easily see the black patch. Compare the black patch on the shaded side of Kennedy's hair to the shaded side of Jackie's hair. Not surprisingly, there is no patch on Jackie's hair.

Having explained that, note that the black patch CAN be made out on normal, linear-scale Z frame. It's just more difficult to see. You need to compare the shaded part of Kennedy's hair to the shaded part of Jackie's hair. Jackie's hair was darker than Kennedy's, but Kennedy's hair looks darker than hers on the back due to the black patch.

 

[Sean Coleman]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

The version posted above pretty clearly has been marked up; when zoomed in it looks like someone took a Sharpie to it. So that's obviously totally ****ing insane. But my question is this: why didn't the same mark-ups appear in the versions Tink Thompson used in 1967?

same shadowing on his elbow and under Jackie’s chin…

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

same shadowing on his elbow and under Jackie’s chin…

 

Yes, of course there are a few small areas that are in deeper shadow, and thus are dark like the patch.

In the particular frame Keven shows here, the black patch actually wraps around Kennedy's head to the ear. This part isn't even in shadow, yet it is as dark as the part in shadow.

Of course, there is also the dead giveaway that the border of the patch is abrupt. Not natural in the least.

There is no question that the patch is painted in.

 

[Aaron Sharpe]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, of course there are a few small areas that are in deeper shadow, and thus are dark like the patch.

In the particular frame Keven shows here, the black patch actually wraps around Kennedy's head to the ear. This part isn't even in shadow, yet it is as dark as the part in shadow.

Of course, there is also the dead giveaway that the border of the patch is abrupt. Not natural in the least.

There is no question that the patch is painted in.

 

If there is one thing we can be certain of after all these years of collecting and analyzing evidence, taking testimony, etc., it's that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out. This is 100% certain. No question whatsoever. Anyone arguing to the contrary cannot be taken seriously.

That, in combination with the entirely unnatural appearance of the back-of-the-head "shadowing" in these Z-frames, is all one needs to know. 

So, that the Zapruder film has been "altered" is an anodyne suggestion. The answer is yes. I remain curious as to the extent of the alteration. There are those who maintain that the entire thing has been "fabricated"—ie, that the car and its occupants are a separate traveling matte atop a composited background, with the Stemmons sign placed over top. This is outside the topic of this thread, but what is related is the intellectual progression from "that's crazy" to "okay, tell me more." The greater part of the US populace has gone through this in regard to the Kennedy assassination. Body alteration once seemed crazy, but it's as much a fact as the back-of-the-head injury. So now we are open to more: Who did it? Where and when did they do it? What exactly did they do? Why? 

[Matt Allison]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The same is true with logarithmic scans of images. It makes it easier to see variations in the darker areas of the image. And thus we can easily see the black patch. Compare the black patch on the shaded side of Kennedy's hair to the shaded side of Jackie's hair. Not surprisingly, there is no patch on Jackie's hair.

Thanks for the explanation here, Sandy, it definitely helps me understand this better.

I also want to mention that this particular issue isn't one I normally pay attention to. But the reality is that if I just went up to some rando stranger on the street and asked them what they saw in that photo, they likely would have the same "what the f***" reaction that I had. 

I'm open to hearing any explanations, but I believe the onus is now on the deniers to explain away what we see here.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

I'm open to hearing any explanations, but I believe the onus is now on the deniers to explain away what we see here.

If "plotters" painted a "black patch" onto Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film, how could they be confident that other films and photos taken in the Plaza that day wouldn't immediately expose their obvious forgery? How could they afford to take that risk? Further, how can any "logarithmic" analysis have validity unless it is applied to the actual original film (or a first generation copy)? Otherwise, we're in Tom Wilson territory ...

[Matt Allison]

There's no other film that shows the right rear of Kennedy's head.

And a word of friendly advice: trying to debate this issue with mockery and denial will just make you look bad. The picture shows what it shows; anyone can see it. What people expect is an explanation for why it looks like the way it does. Work on that.

[Keven Hofeling]

25 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

If "plotters" painted a "black patch" onto Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film, how could they be confident that other films and photos taken in the Plaza that day wouldn't immediately expose their obvious forgery? How could they afford to take that risk? Further, how can any "logarithmic" analysis have validity unless it is applied to the actual original film (or a first generation copy)? Otherwise, we're in Tom Wilson territory ...

NOTE that it was only after the CIA discovered that they could only make very crude easily detectable alterations to the Zapruder film that LIFE upped its purchase offer to Abraham Zapruder from $50,000 to $150,000 (and it should also be noted that Abraham Zapruder perjured himself before the Warren Commission when he stated that he had only received $25,000 -- which constituted only one of the annual $25,000.00 payments he was to receive under the contract with LIFE -- and that he had donated all of it for the J.D. Tippit funeral). It was by purchasing the film from Abraham Zapruder and locking the film away in a LIFE magazine safe that the CIA tried to suppress the film from the start because they knew the alterations would be uncovered as the limitations of time and the technology of the period resulted in the changes being detectable, thus CIA/LIFE withheld the Zapruder film from public consumption until long after Geraldo Rivera aired a bootleg copy in 1975 because the alterations in the film turned out to be of such poor quality that they are detectable. Douglas Horne covers all of that as follows in his landmark article "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration":

---------------------------------------------------------

Doug Horne wrote:

 

"...1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting  a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing.

In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head).  I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.”  There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible.  As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film.  They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.”  Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film.  (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film.  When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed.  Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front.  The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils.  Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.)

Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny.  That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film.  By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making.  By Sunday night, November 24th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat.  After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments.  His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years.

The alterationists in 1963 also had a “disposal” problem, for they had three genuine “first day copies” of the Zapruder film floating around which threatened to proliferate quickly, unless they could get them out of circulation immediately, replaced with new “first generation copies” stuck from the new “Hawkeyeworks” master delivered to NPIC on Sunday night.

For them, speed was of the essence, not perfection.  I believe that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening, three new first generation copies were struck from it, as well as at least one “dirty dupe” for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago.  Only after these products were exposed at Rochester, early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC by “Bill Smith,” who took his cock-and-bull story along with him, to his everlasting discredit.

Of course, the cock-and-bull story worked, since Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter knew nothing about the event with the true camera-original film at NPIC the previous night.  McMahon and Hunter had no reason, on Sunday night, 11/24/63, to disbelieve “Bill Smith” when he told them that he had brought “the camera-original film” with him, after it had been “developed” at Rochester.  After all, the product handed to them looked like a camera-original “double 8” film: it was a 16 mm wide unslit film, with sprocket holes on both sides, and exhibited opposing image strips, upside down in relation to each other, and going in reverse directions.

I am quite sure that by Tuesday, November 26th, all of the original “first day copies” had been swapped out with the three replacements made at “Hawkeyeworks” Sunday night from the new “original.”

NPIC finished up with the new “original” Zapruder film by some time Monday morning, November 25th, or perhaps by mid-day Monday at the latest.  McMahon went home after the enlargements (the 5 x 7 prints) were run off, but the graphics people at NPIC still had to finish assembling the three sets of four panel briefing boards.

And the rest is history.  Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans—technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world—the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely.  Alterations that were “good enough” to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad—very crude—today, under the magnifying glass of today’s digital technology...."

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Edited February 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

IF LIFE HAD THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM THE WEEKEND OF THE ASSASSINATION THEN WHY DID LIFE PRINT ONLY GRAINY BLACK AND WHITE STILLS IN ITS 11/29/1963 ASSASSINATION EDITION?

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/5002609553128407/

 

"...Saturday, November 23rd [1963]: Abraham Zapruder met with Secret Service officials and Mr. Stolley of LIFE in his office on Saturday morning, 11/23/63, and projected the original film for them on his 8 mm projector.[9]

 

He then struck a deal with Richard Stolley, selling to LIFE, for $50,000.00, worldwide print media rights to the assassination movie (but not motion picture rights). Zapruder agreed in this initial contract that he would not exploit the film as a motion picture, himself, until Friday, November 29th. Zapruder immediately relinquished the camera-original film to LIFE for a six day period, and kept in his possession the one remaining “same day copy.” By the terms of this initial contract with LIFE, Zapruder was to have the original film returned to him by LIFE on or about November 29th, and in exchange he was then to give LIFE the remaining first day copy.[10]...

 

...Tuesday, November 26th [1963]:  The first newsstand copies of the November 29th issue of LIFE began to trickle out; the issue displayed a total of 31 fuzzy, poor resolution, black-and-white images of blowups from individual frames of the film.[16] Twenty-eight of them were quite small; two were medium sized; and one was a large format reproduction. What is hard to understand, in retrospect, is why LIFE magazine published such muddy, indistinct images of a film that its parent company, Time Inc., had spent an additional $100,000.00 to repurchase....

 

...Let us reexamine where the three copies were that day, on Saturday, 11/23/63. One “first day copy” remained with Zapruder in Dallas; one had been loaned to the FBI in Dallas by the Secret Service in Dallas, and was flown to FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Saturday night, via the Baltimore airport;[23] and the third “same day copy” had been flown to Secret Service headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Friday night, and had arrived sometime between midnight and dawn. Let us assume that the Secret Service copy in the nation’s capital had arrived by sunrise (a conservative estimate), and that officials at Secret Service headquarters had spent all morning Saturday reviewing it. Even if those conservative timelines were the case, then if it were the film brought to Brugioni for the briefing board work, WHY WAS IT NOT DELIVERED AT NOON, OR ONE O’CLOCK PM ON SATURDAY? The fact that the film delivered to him arrived at 10 PM, and the fact that it had not been seen by the two men who couriered it to NPIC, mitigates against the film he worked with having been the “first day copy” sent to Washington by the Dallas Secret Service (Max Phillips) on Friday night.

 

That is most unlikely for another reason, as well. Enlargements of tiny 8 mm frames for briefing boards would not have been made from a copy film if the original film were available. Furthermore, Dino Brugioni himself would have noticed the soft focus if he had been working with a copy film, instead of an original.

 

So in my view, it is clear that the camera-original Zapruder film was intercepted in Chicago by Federal agents identifying themselves as Secret Service late on Saturday afternoon or early Saturday evening, and then flown directly to Washington D.C., and taken immediately to NPIC, in the Navy Yard, from Washington National Airport....

 

...And there is strong evidence that such dupes—or at least one such dupe—known in the trade as “dirty dupes,” were run off as black and white copies at “Hawkeyeworks,” and then rushed to Chicago Sunday night so that the magazine could begin its layout for the revised November 29th issue. Three such “dirty dupes”—all unslit, 16 mm wide, “double 8” versions of the Zapruder film—surfaced in January of 2000 when the LMH Co. materials were physically transferred to the Sixth Floor Museum, in Dallas. They are all black and white products (as are the 31 poor quality blowup prints of the Zapruder film published in the November 29th issue of LIFE). As noted by author Richard Trask, one of them, a “reversal black-and-white positive,” does contain markings that “…appear to be markings used to determine selected images for inclusion in LIFE magazine.”[25]...

 

...I believe that at least one of the three unslit “double 8” Zapruder film “dirty dupes” found at the Sixth Floor Museum in January of 2000, among the donated materials from the LMH Co. (that once belonged to LIFE magazine), was run off in a contact printer at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday evening after the alteration of the Zapruder film was completed. It was then, I believe, rushed to Chicago from Rochester so that LIFE magazine, now behind schedule, could get going on its layout for the delayed November 29th issue. Arrival of just one “dirty dupe” at the Donnelly printing plant on Sunday night would have provided the imagery necessary for the first mail-out issues of the magazine to be ready for mailing Monday afternoon, November 25th, and would also have been consistent with the first newsstand issues hitting the shelves on Tuesday, November 26th, as reported by Trask. In his 2005 book, National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, Trask writes (on p. 117): “The cardboard container associated with the 16 mm films included a printed address reading ‘Allied Film Laboratory, 306 W. Jackson, Chicago 6, Illinois.’” In my view, this might merely indicate that one “dirty dupe” was received from “Hawkeyeworks,” and that the lab in question ran off two more copies of the first “dirty dupe” after it arrived in Chicago Sunday night. Or it might indicate nothing at all related to the provenance of the dupes. Even if the box does indicate a connection between Allied Film Laboratory and the dupes, the presence of the box alone does not indicate that all three of the dupes were run off in Chicago, nor does it tell us that they were copied from the camera-original film....

'The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: SIGNPOSTS POINTING TO THE FILM’S ALTERATION'

By Douglas P. Horne, Author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Edited February 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

There's no other film that shows the right rear of Kennedy's head.

Not in evidence now, no. But how could conspirators be sure one wouldn't surface at some point?

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

And a word of friendly advice: trying to debate this issue with mockery and denial will just make you look bad.

I'm not mocking anything. I'm trying to understand the logic of (poorly?) editing only one of the films without knowing if other films/photos would surface and render the original alteration exposed as fake for all to see.

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

What people expect is an explanation for why it looks like the way it does. 

The people who have allegedly proven the Zapruder film to be a forgery have been working on an explanation for more than a decade, and their claims have not been subjected to peer review. I'll be curious to see what they come up with.

Edited February 7 by Jonathan Cohen

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Aaron Sharpe said:

If there is one thing we can be certain of after all these years of collecting and analyzing evidence, taking testimony, etc., it's that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out. This is 100% certain. No question whatsoever. Anyone arguing to the contrary cannot be taken seriously.

That, in combination with the entirely unnatural appearance of the back-of-the-head "shadowing" in these Z-frames, is all one needs to know. 

So, that the Zapruder film has been "altered" is an anodyne suggestion. The answer is yes. I remain curious as to the extent of the alteration. There are those who maintain that the entire thing has been "fabricated"—ie, that the car and its occupants are a separate traveling matte atop a composited background, with the Stemmons sign placed over top. This is outside the topic of this thread, but what is related is the intellectual progression from "that's crazy" to "okay, tell me more." The greater part of the US populace has gone through this in regard to the Kennedy assassination. Body alteration once seemed crazy, but it's as much a fact as the back-of-the-head injury. So now we are open to more: Who did it? Where and when did they do it? What exactly did they do? Why? 

Greetings. Aaron. I beg to differ on your initial statement. Even if one is to conclude the back of the head was blown out, it makes little sense to elevate the evidence for this fact above a number of other items of evidence.

There is some dispute about the nature of JFK's head wound, to put it mildly.

There is however little dispute that the the throat wound was unusually small, which suggests it was either an entrance or the exit of a low velocity projectile, neither of which fits the single-assassin scenario.

There is also little dispute that Oswald was not practiced with the rifle, and that the WC scenario of his putting the rifle together with a dime and then hitting two of three shots in 6 seconds or so, is highly unlikely--like a hundred to one, or less. 

There is also strong evidence for at least one sound's coming from the knoll, and for smoke being seen in the area. Whether this signifies a shot or a diversionary device is of little matter, as the net result is the same: this smoke did not come from Oswald.

Speaking of which, there is also strong evidence for Oswald's not being on the back stairs in the minute after the shooting, and not being in the elevator that came down a few minutes after that. IOW, there is strong evidence for his not being the shooter. 

And there is also, of course, strong reason to doubt he brought the rifle in that morning in a paper bag. The only witnesses who saw Oswald with a bag that morning refused to ID it, and no one saw him make the bag the day before, or smuggle it home. 

Now, all these points of evidence suggest a conspiracy and/or Oswald's innocence. And the arguments against them rely on weak sauce and circular reasoning, as exemplified by Liebeler's assertion that although Oswald was not of the skill needed to pull off the shooting...he must have got lucky. 

Now contrast this with the head wound evidence, in which the recollections of some people can be countered with the recollections of some other people, along with the autopsy report, photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film. 

The case for conspiracy is strong even without the head wound evidence. Maybe even stronger. 

But a case for conspiracy that embraces the head wound evidence--and points out that the wounds depicted in the photos and Z-film are inconsistent with the WC's shooting scenario, and strongly suggestive--proof really--of two heads wounds, and thus two shooters, is a sure winner, IMO. 

Edited February 7 by Pat Speer

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Quote

The people who have allegedly proven the Zapruder film to be a forgery have been working on an explanation for more than a decade, and their claims have not been subjected to peer review.

One thing the pro-alteration claimants really need to do is get their heads together and come up with a set of claims they all agree on. If you look at James 'Sandy Hook' Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, which came out in 2003, you'll find all sorts of claims made. Other sources make other claims, while ignoring some of the claims made elsewhere.

Come on, make your minds up! If alterationist A makes a claim but alterationist B doesn't believe it, why be surprised when the rest of us don't take it seriously either?

Anyone who has been following this debate will have noted the general level of amateurishness involved. This bit of the film contradicts what this witness said, so it must be a fake! That bit of the film looks a bit funny to me, so it must be a fake! The whole debate gives the impression of being just a game of moon-landings-style spot-the-anomaly rather than serious research. To get over this problem, let's see a bit of consistency and joined-up thinking.

Exactly which parts of the film were altered, and why? The three main claims that come to mind are: the popular black blob covering up a back-of-the-head wound; the claim that frames were removed to hide an incriminating car stop; and that other frames were removed to hide the car's incriminating (why?) turn onto Elm Street.

So was it just this part that was faked? Or was it just that other part that was faked? Or were they both faked? Or are those two parts authentic but some other part was faked? Or was the entire film fabricated from scratch (as is claimed on page 181 of Fetzer's book)?

For each specific claim, what would have been the rationale? Why would anyone go to the trouble of faking this part while leaving that incriminating part intact? And why does at least one claim of alteration have the effect of making the lone-nut claim more rather than less plausible? I'm thinking here of the claim that frames were removed which showed the car moving along Elm Street before the head shot. Without the Zapruder film's timing of the car's progress along the road, there is no constraint on the amount of time required to fire three shots from the sixth-floor rifle.

Then you need to agree on the evidence for alteration. Which of the apparent anomalies in the film are the result of alteration, and which have plausible non-conspiratorial explanations? If an apparent anomaly has a plausible everyday explanation, but you prefer an inherently less plausible pro-alteration explanation, why do you do this?

Pro-alteration claimants also need to come up with, and agree on, a plausible account for each apparent anomaly. If the film shows Mary Moorman standing on the grass when she should have been standing in the street, or this or that road sign in a strange position, or that back-to-front car on Houston Street, or this seven-foot-tall spectator, what type of alteration must have been made to produce that particular anomaly? And what good reason would there have been for making that particular anomaly-producing alteration?

Jonathan's remark about the lack of peer review is a good one. Once you have agreed on what's fake and what isn't, get your evidence together, write an article, and submit it to a serious scientific journal. Then, if your article gets rejected, let us know the reasons that were given for its rejection. And before anyone claims that no serious scientific journal would accept an article critical of the lone-nut view, look at the examples of the Journal of Forensic Sciences and the Annals of Applied Statistics, each of which published articles that seriously undermined the HSCA's use of neutron activation analysis.

But just to start with: get your heads together and tell us definitively which parts of the film were altered and which parts weren't.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now contrast this with the head wound evidence, in which the recollections of some people can be countered with the recollections of some other people, along with the autopsy report, photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film.

 

I have indisputably proven that the blowout wound on Kennedy's head was indeed on the back of his head. Which means that the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent, the autopsy x-rays were altered, and the Zapruder film was altered to hide that wound. All of these make Pat's post moot.

My proof is basically this: There are so many more witnesses who said they saw the wound on the back of the head, compared to the number who didn't see it there, that it is statistically impossible for so many witnesses to have gotten it wrong.

The proof is here: