The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Roger Odisio]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Roger's argument seems to be that "Johnson and the CIA" had decided, either (a) immediately after the assassination or (b) even before the assassination, to impose the 'Oswald did it' interpretation, and that the only reason "Johnson and the CIA" wanted briefing boards prepared was to see whether the Zapruder film contradicted the interpretation they had already decided to impose.

If I've got that wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected. If I've got that right, Roger needs to produce some documentary evidence that "Johnson and the CIA" did in fact decide on that interpretation as early as Roger seems to be claiming.

This may be your worst post yet, Jeremy, tho admittedly there is lots of competition for that honor. Of course I'm sayng that Johnson and the CIA wanted briefing boards prepared that Saturday in order to see if the Z film contradicted the Oswald story that had already started to put out.  And if so to what extent.  I've said, several times. that's one reason why using only the original film for the boards would suffice.  

Now you're feigning ignorance about when the Oswald story was first floated, leading to your usual cry for documentary evidence.  

There were a number of statements by officials implicating Oswald that afternoon.  But the clearest, the one I have focused on, is the message from the White House Situation Room a few hours after the murder to the officials on the planes coming back to DC, including AF1, fingering Oswald as the lone assassin. 

The message was referenced in Theodore White's The Making of the President, 1964.  According to Vince Salandria the party on AF 1 learned that "there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest"  The message was also mentioned in Pierre Salinger's book, With Kennedy.

Not only was the message form the Situation Room false, no one there could have possibly known it was true.

Let me quote from Salandria's famous speech delivered 35 years after the murder, The JFKA: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes.  The message from the SR was "conclusive evidence of high level US government guilt. The first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin, before there was any evidence against him, and while there was overwhelmingly convincing evidence of a conspiracy, had come from the White House Situation Room.  Only the assassins could have made that premature declaration that Oswald was the assassin."

He concludes :"Bundy {who was running the SR} was indirectly instructing the Presidential party and the cabinet members that he was speaking for the killers....They were being circuitously informed that the assassination had been committed by a level of US power that was above and beyond punishment." 

Whew!  that last part has turned out to be true, hasn't it Jeremy?  Where you no doubt see unsupported speculation from Salandria, I see insight worthy of pursuing. 

Anyway, to answer your false mystery, the messages from the WHSR establish that the killers had settled for the Oswald story early on.  In fact it's clear to me that the murder would not have proceeded without a story in place the planners had agreed on, to among other things, hide their involvement, blame someone else, and get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place.

 

 

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If Roger believes that the 'Oswald did it' interpretation was an integral part of the plot, he needs to demonstrate why "Johnson and the CIA" decided to have JFK assassinated in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of spectators, any number of whom would have been carrying cameras and could be expected to capture images containing evidence of more than one gunman.

Personally, if I were planning a public assassination using more than one gunman, in which evidence of more than one gunman was likely to be recorded on film, it would be because I wanted the assassination to look like a conspiracy rather than the act of one gunman.

This moth eaten false mystery has been answered in several ways many times.   Maybe I'll circle back some day to talk about it.  In any case, it's clear you're not as smart as the killers were. 

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

I've pointed out before that Sandy's idea of what constitutes proof is not what most people would think of as proof. I won't embarrass Sandy by giving a link to his claimed "proof that the Zapruder and/or Nix film was altered", which was debunked just a few minutes after he posted it. Oh, well, if you insist: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27679-possibly-the-easiest-to-understand-proof-that-the-zapruder-andor-nix-film-was-altered/

Greg Doudna writes:

I'd be happy to accept that the film was altered if the case for alteration were submitted to an appropriate scholarly journal, subjected to peer review, and approved by independent experts with appropriate qualifications. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened. In fact, as far as I'm aware, no-one who claims alteration has even bothered to submit an article to a reputable journal.

Of course, it's up to the person making the claim to provide sufficient evidence to support that claim. Until they do so, we shouldn't believe the claim. That appears to be the situation we're in with the 'Greer turned his head too fast' claim. Nevertheless, I've found this apparent rebuttal online, in which someone claims to have done what Greer appears to have done:

https://jfkassassination.quora.com/Some-have-argued-that-Agent-Greer-s-head-swiveled-impossibly-fast-in-F315-317-Some-say-that-his-head-turned-from-150-l

This page contains links to a number of articles which refute various alteration claims:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

 

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

This may be your worst post yet, Jeremy, tho admittedly there is lots of competition for that honor. Of course I'm sayng that Johnson and the CIA wanted briefing boards prepared that Saturday in order to see if the Z film contradicted the Oswald story that had already started to put out.  And if so to what extent.  I've said, several times. that's one reason why using only the original film for the boards would suffice.  

Now you're feigning ignorance about when the Oswald story was first floated, leading to your usual cry for documentary evidence.  

There were a number of statements by officials implicating Oswald that afternoon.  But the clearest, the one I have focused on, is the message from the White House Situation Room a few hours after the murder to the officials on the planes coming back to DC, including AF1, fingering Oswald as the lone assassin. 

The message was referenced in Theodore White's The Making of the President, 1964.  According to Vince Salandria the party on AF 1 learned that "there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest"  The message was also mentioned in Pierre Salinger's book, With Kennedy.

Not only was the message form the Situation Room false, no one there could have possibly known it was true.

Let me quote from Salandria's famous speech delivered 35 years after the murder, The JFKA: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes.  The message from the SR was "conclusive evidence of high level US government guilt. The first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin, before there was any evidence against him, and while there was overwhelmingly convincing evidence of a conspiracy, had come from the White House Situation Room.  Only the assassins could have made that premature declaration that Oswald was the assassin."

He concludes :"Bundy {who was running the SR} was indirectly instructing the Presidential party and the cabinet members that he was speaking for the killers....They were being circuitously informed that the assassination had been committed by a level of US power that was above and beyond punishment." 

Whew!  that last part has turned out to be true, hasn't it Jeremy?  Where you no doubt see unsupported speculation from Salandria, I see insight worthy of pursuing. 

Anyway, to answer your false mystery, the messages from the WHSR establish that the killers had settled for the Oswald story early on.  In fact it's clear to me that the murder would not have proceeded without a story in place the planners had agreed on, to among other things, hide their involvement, blame someone else, and get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place.

 

 

This moth eaten false mystery has been answered in several ways many times.   Maybe I'll circle back some day to talk about it.  In any case, it's clear you're not as smart as the killers were. 

 

It's not clear the decision was Johnson's or the CIA's to make.  That's an assumption.  But the decision had been made, by someone, at the latest, as of the afternoon on the 22nd.

 

P. 68:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan/bm-BjcLtRwwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=25 year old boy

"And the thing is, Dungan had said, they will blame it on that 25-year old boy."  Moynihan, Memorandum For The Record, Nov. 22, 1963.

 

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'd be happy to accept that the film was altered if the case for alteration were submitted to an appropriate scholarly journal, subjected to peer review, and approved by independent experts with appropriate qualifications. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened. In fact, as far as I'm aware, no-one who claims alteration has even bothered to submit an article to a reputable journal.

That's what I meant too, not hypothetical individual well-qualified experts voicing support, but solid and convincing argument that is published in a top-tier peer-reviewed journal, followed by it being convincing to a significant sector of insiders in the relevant fields and holding up well over time in followup discussions and analyses. As you say, there is no sign that has happened or seems likely to happen.

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I've found this apparent rebuttal online, in which someone claims to have done what Greer appears to have done:

https://jfkassassination.quora.com/Some-have-argued-that-Agent-Greer-s-head-swiveled-impossibly-fast-in-F315-317-Some-say-that-his-head-turned-from-150-l

This page contains links to a number of articles which refute various alteration claims:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

Thank you.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating that Sandy's claim ("We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered") uses a definition of 'proof' that most people would not agree with.

Sandy uses 'proof' in the sense that most people would use the word 'evidence': a statement or observation that is consistent with a particular proposition. For example, Sandy's head-wound witnesses and the apparent anomalies in the Zapruder film are consistent with the proposition that the film has been altered in some way; and the apparent anomalies in the moon-landings photographs are consistent with the proposition that the moon-landings photographs are not photographs of actual moon landings.

But most people would define proof as something stronger than that: a statement or observation that can only reasonably be interpreted in one way. If, as appears to be the case, those witnesses and anomalies have reasonable alternative explanations, they don't constitute proof as most people would understand the term.

While I'm in a boring pedantic mood, I'll also deal with something Sandy wrote earlier:

Quote

In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

It isn't up to "critics of the theory to prove it wrong." Critics are given the opportunity to show that a proposition has, for whatever reason, insufficient explanatory power. But no-one is obliged to prove anything wrong. It's always up to the claimant to demonstrate to their peers that their claim is justified. Until the claim is actively accepted by those peers, it remains in its default state: merely a claim.

A proposition that is put forward for criticism is usually called a hypothesis rather than a theory. Only when a hypothesis is widely accepted (by the claimants' peers) to have acquired strong confirmation, does it become a theory; for example, the germ theory of disease, or the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the case of claimed anomalies in the Zapruder film, the relevant peers would be experts in film technology, not hopeful non-experts on web forums. Sorry about that.

None of the specific claims of alteration to the Zapruder film (or the forgery of the moon-landings photos) have got beyond the hypothesis stage, and many have been demonstrated to be false, often because they are based on imperfections which are present in a poor-quality copy but not present in better-quality copies.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Roger Odisio writes:

Quote

Of course I'm sayng that Johnson and the CIA wanted briefing boards prepared that Saturday in order to see if the Z film contradicted the Oswald story that had already started to put out.  And if so to what extent.  I've said, several times. that's one reason why using only the original film for the boards would suffice.

There's no reason to assume that "using only the original film for the boards would suffice." Why should "Johnson and the CIA" have assumed that a first-generation copy would not have contained enough detail to determine the number and direction of the shots?

Since the only version of the film within hundreds of miles of Washington on the Saturday afternoon was the Secret Service's first-day copy, a copy was all they had access to. Until Roger provides actual evidence (i.e. not speculation) that the original was sent to Washington, or that "Johnson and the CIA" or any of their minions believed that only an original film would do, there is no good reason to believe that the film at NPIC was anything other than the Secret Service's first-day copy.

Quote

In fact it's clear to me that the murder would not have proceeded without a story in place the planners had agreed on, to among other things, hide their involvement, blame someone else, and get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place.

Roger is implying that "the planners", a term which seems to be synonymous with "Johnson and the CIA", had intended as part of their pre-assassination plan to blame the assassination on a lone-nut patsy.

But if the blame-it-on-a-lone-gunman-patsy element was decided in advance, it made no sense to have JFK eliminated in public by multiple gunmen, in front of hundreds of people who might capture images which contradicted the lone-gunman story. For the same reason, it made no sense to try to alter any of the films or photographs, because there could have been any number of other films or photographs in existence which might have exposed the alteration.

If, on the other hand, the blame-it-on-a-lone-gunman-patsy element was only decided after the event, on the Saturday afternoon once news of Oswald's arrest reached Washington (Roger mentions "the message from the White House Situation Room a few hours after the murder"), the people who made that decision cannot have been the people who instigated a public assassination using more than one gunman. It isn't credible that the same people would have been happy for spectators to capture evidence of multiple gunmen, only to change their minds when someone gets arrested in Dallas less than an hour and a half after the assassination.

In both of these scenarios, there would have been no reason to alter the Zapruder film, or indeed any of the other films and photographs. That's why no good evidence exists that any such alteration happened.

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As you say, there is no sign that has happened or seems likely to happen.

Greg...  please help us understand how this depiction of the "original"  film - spliced 6 times leaving 7 pieces with only 1  6'3" section with images - can possibly be an "unaltered, out of the camera original". Thx.

 

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

not hypothetical individual well-qualified experts voicing support, but solid and convincing argument

Doug  Horne is not hypothetical Greg, and should be considered "expert"... with his anthology open to any review you'd like.

You sound like Gary Mack, insisting if the data does not comes from a government agency's committee, it's not valid when in fact the opposite is usually true.

How again are these 7 pieces of film to be considered NOT altered from what should have been a full Side B of uninterrupted film AND there is no "0183" perforated in any part of this film, only on a copy?

Really Greg, how much spoon feeding does any one person need anyway?  You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know my friend.  You want the gov't to publicly state the Z film has been altered - or all bets are off? Really?

 

Here's the impossible head turn @Jeremy Bojczuk mentions for which experiments have been done and have found this to be physically impossible.  

What's impossible is meeting your need for a "peer-reviewed journal" with anyone willing to actually say what the rest of us know.  The extensive proof of not only alteration "change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way."   but changes which were not comparatively small such as the removal of the slowdown/stop and the removal of scores of frames at the Elm/Houston corner

 

Ask yourself about POSITION A, Greg.  And why the FBI included it as a location the limo passed over.  Then reconcile that position with Z133 and the Queen Mary.

It has become too old and convenient to demand peer-review when that's exactly what we do here with people far more knowledgeable about the event than most anyone anywhere else.  

And maybe answer a question no one wants to address...  After a film is received in DC by SS Chief Rowley late Friday night early Sat morning sent by Max Phillips, WHERE DOES IT GO?

And where then is Zapruder's "best copy" from day 1?

 

Any reason the quality of the film just seconds before is so bad compared to the extant film with it being said about the original how vibrant and colorful compared to copies.  The rest of the film's images (non-assassination) aren't even close to what we are shown as the original.  Really Greg, how many times must be gone over anyway?

 

[Paul Cummings]

Welcome back DJ!

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

It has become too old and convenient to demand peer-review when that's exactly what we do here with people far more knowledgeable about the event than most anyone anywhere else. 

Yet when ACTUAL experts such as Zavada deliver slam-dunk proof that the film has not been altered to the absurd degree claimed by people here, you refuse to accept his conclusions.

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen wrote:
This is what Jeremy does if he can't win an argument. He attacks his opponent.

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating...

 

Oh really? The link you posted, that would "embarrass" me (your words), wasn't meant to attack me?

Oh please, I am well aware of the shaming tactics you use to discredit people who you disagree with but can't out-argue. Remember, I'm the one who got the moderators to enforce forum rules against some of your shaming tactics.

 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I wasn't attacking Sandy; I was merely illustrating that Sandy's claim ("We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered") uses a definition of 'proof' that most people would not agree with.

 

My proof of the gaping head-wound location is that it is statistically impossible for 40 out of 45 gaping wound witnesses to corroborate each other by placing the wound in the very same location as each other, and yet be wrong. It is a mathematical proof.

Now, let's see what Jeremy says my proof is equivalent to:

 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

For example, Sandy's head-wound witnesses and the apparent anomalies in the Zapruder film are consistent with the proposition that the film has been altered in some way; and the apparent anomalies in the moon-landings photographs are consistent with the proposition that the moon-landings photographs are not photographs of actual moon landings.

 

My proof is no better than the evidence that the moon landing photos are fake? WTF?

Jeremy is so desperate to win an argument that he comes up with BS like that.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen wrote:
In science, once someone has posited a theory, it is incumbent on the critics of the theory to prove it wrong. If they show that something in the theory cannot be, then it is incumbent on the adherents of the theory to correct the theory accordingly.

... no-one is obliged to prove anything wrong.

 

Yes they are, if they want to be taken seriously.

If a critic of a theory or hypothesis merely states that the theory is wrong, without showing something in the theory cannot be, then the critic is merely expressing an opinion.

To have any impact whatsoever, the critic must show a serious problem with the theory.

 

[Roger Odisio]

17 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

It's not clear the decision was Johnson's or the CIA's to make.  That's an assumption.  But the decision had been made, by someone, at the latest, as of the afternoon on the 22nd.

 

P. 68:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan/bm-BjcLtRwwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=25 year old boy

"And the thing is, Dungan had said, they will blame it on that 25-year old boy."  Moynihan, Memorandum For The Record, Nov. 22, 1963.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that reference to Oswald as the patsy had to have been one of the latest.  Together with the even clearer message from the White House Situation Room that afternoon explicitly naming Oswald as the assassin to the group of officials on the plane back to DC.

But it couldn't have been the first.

Had the killers waited until after the murder to decide on Oswald as the patsy, that means the plan to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer mustn't have been developed until then or later as well.

I assume everyone understands that before the murder the killers had to have had a plan to conceal their involvement.  That's not enough.  Blaming someone else--Oswald--is an essential element to such a plan.

In fact, as we can see, blaming Oswald took center stage in the coverup.  Framing Oswald, while ignoring, destroying and lying about contrary information, was the focus of the WC, the official investigative body of the murder.  They never considered other, readily available information that might have led them to where the killers were hiding.

The killers didn't even do a very good job concealing their own involvement as the failed attempt to alter the Z film and their subsequent attempts to hide it from public view illustrate.  Yet, 60 years later, they have gotten away with it.

In short, there is no mystery as to when the killers decided to blame Oswald as part of their coverup plan.