The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I see the copy-and-paste guy is back again! Keven appears to be worked up about comments I made back in January and February. That's been festering away for some time, hasn't it? Keven writes:

Quote

Mr. Bojczuk's position that the pink halo that appears in Zapruder frame 313 is also present in Z-314 through Z-316 is demonstrably false

Brain matter is visible even in relatively poor-quality copies of frames 313, 314, 315, and 316. Here we are again:

• Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
• Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

Quote

1/18th of one second is a supernaturally short time for the cloud to exist, and indicates that frames have been removed ... the pink cloud dissipates at an artificially rapid rate

If Keven is claiming that the brain matter must have taken longer to disperse than we see in the film, he needs to produce some evidence and argument to justify that claim. Until he does so, it's just an empty assertion.

Quote

The method of the madness of critics and lone nutter advocates such as Mr. Bojczuk, Mr. Gram, and Mr. Cohen ... 

As far as I'm aware, none of the people Keven mentions are "lone nutter advocates". This is an accusation which other everything-is-a-fake advocates have made in the past, and which tells us something about their mentality. Keven seems to think that the only alternative to the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself interpretation is that there was a massive conspiracy by all-powerful Bad Guys who faked the evidence on a scale never seen in any assassination before or since. As I asked earlier, is there evidence that anything like the alteration of the Zapruder film has ever happened in any other assassination since the advent of photography? No such evidence has yet been produced.

I'm sorry to disappoint Keven, but it's perfectly possible for a group of conspirators to assassinate a politician without going on to fake a load of evidence, let alone faking the single most important piece of evidence which demonstrates the existence of that conspiracy.

Quote

is to advocate that we remove events from their natural context, and consider them in isolation, confined to the altered evidence itself, which devolves the discussion of same to an exercise of circular reasoning, and reliance upon the altered evidence itself as corroboration for the very same altered evidence, thereby excluding from consideration both the expert and eyewitness testimony which falsifies the altered evidence.

No, there is no circular reasoning involved. No-one is claiming that "the altered evidence itself [corroborates] the very same altered evidence". The claim is in two parts:

• the evidence that has been put forward is insufficient to demonstrate alteration (for example, it is uncontroversial that eye-witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes), and
• superior evidence demonstrates that the film hasn't been altered (for example, the fact that the film in the national archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination).

Quote

he goes further by claiming that the extant Zapruder film depicts none of that [alleged horizontal debris] whatsoever simply because the shutter speed of Abraham Zapruder's camera was too slow to capture any of that imagery

Keven fails to understand the point I made several months ago (has this really been bubbling away inside his head since January?). During each exposure cycle of Zapruder's camera, the shutter was closed for slightly longer than it was open. The amount of time the shutter was closed between frames 313 and 314 was more than enough for any horizontal debris to fly out of sight; for details, see my comment from January. The fact that the film didn't capture any horizontal debris does not imply that the film was altered.

It's interesting that Keven hasn't actually put forward an actual argument against the point I made. He merely copies and pastes accounts by people who were hit by brain matter, without explaining why those accounts require the film to have been altered. Of course, those accounts are perfectly compatible with an unaltered film.

Here is Keven's homework for tonight:

1. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that "the pink cloud dissipates at an artificially rapid rate".
2. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that the Zapruder film must have captured any horizontal debris.
3. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that anyone who questions the everything-is-a-fake nonsense must be a lone-nutter.

[Kevin Balch]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I see the copy-and-paste guy is back again! Keven appears to be worked up about comments I made back in January and February. That's been festering away for some time, hasn't it? Keven writes:

Brain matter is visible even in relatively poor-quality copies of frames 313, 314, 315, and 316. Here we are again:

• Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
• Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

If Keven is claiming that the brain matter must have taken longer to disperse than we see in the film, he needs to produce some evidence and argument to justify that claim. Until he does so, it's just an empty assertion.

As far as I'm aware, none of the people Keven mentions are "lone nutter advocates". This is an accusation which other everything-is-a-fake advocates have made in the past, and which tells us something about their mentality. Keven seems to think that the only alternative to the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself interpretation is that there was a massive conspiracy by all-powerful Bad Guys who faked the evidence on a scale never seen in any assassination before or since. As I asked earlier, is there evidence that anything like the alteration of the Zapruder film has ever happened in any other assassination since the advent of photography? No such evidence has yet been produced.

I'm sorry to disappoint Keven, but it's perfectly possible for a group of conspirators to assassinate a politician without going on to fake a load of evidence, let alone faking the single most important piece of evidence which demonstrates the existence of that conspiracy.

No, there is no circular reasoning involved. No-one is claiming that "the altered evidence itself [corroborates] the very same altered evidence". The claim is in two parts:

• the evidence that has been put forward is insufficient to demonstrate alteration (for example, it is uncontroversial that eye-witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes), and
• superior evidence demonstrates that the film hasn't been altered (for example, the fact that the film in the national archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination).

Keven fails to understand the point I made several months ago (has this really been bubbling away inside his head since January?). During each exposure cycle of Zapruder's camera, the shutter was closed for slightly longer than it was open. The amount of time the shutter was closed between frames 313 and 314 was more than enough for any horizontal debris to fly out of sight; for details, see my comment from January. The fact that the film didn't capture any horizontal debris does not imply that the film was altered.

It's interesting that Keven hasn't actually put forward an actual argument against the point I made. He merely copies and pastes accounts by people who were hit by brain matter, without explaining why those accounts require the film to have been altered. Of course, those accounts are perfectly compatible with an unaltered film.

Here is Keven's homework for tonight:

1. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that "the pink cloud dissipates at an artificially rapid rate".
2. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that the Zapruder film must have captured any horizontal debris.
3. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that anyone who questions the everything-is-a-fake nonsense must be a lone-nutter.

There are two major components of the ejecta debris: Fine misty droplets which quickly slow down in the air and the larger particles which do not lose speed as rapidly allowing them to expand rapidly. The former are difficult to see and don’t require much expansion to disappear. They also remain suspended in a fixed point in space as the limo and its occupants move on. The latter are by themselves easier to see but a quickly diluted by their rapid expansion until only the very largest particles remain visible.

In the interview, Brugioni is examining a computer screen image from a copy of the camera original film. And as Brugioni himself points out, every copy loses information.

Brugioni does NOT report any material coming out the rear of the skull but only upward and forward.

Also, where was the limo stop?

Edited Tuesday at 04:24 PM by Kevin Balch

[Pat Speer]

23 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Beautiful job Keven.  The bottom line here is, did Dino Brugioni "mis-remember" what he says he saw.  He said that he was shocked and everyone gasped at the head shot(s).  You don't mis-remember what you've been shocked by.

The film was altered.

If you're gonna "believe" Brugioni's 50 years-on memories, then, yes, the film may have been altered. 

But what was altered in the film?

A cadre of researchers have taken from Brugioni's statements that the film was altered to hide an explosion from the back of the head, and add an explosion from the top of the head.

But Brugioni never said anything about seeing an explosion from the back of the head, and thought the the explosion from the top of the head in the film he saw was MORE explosive than the explosion from the top of the head in the current film.

That's not kosher, IMO.

It would be like taking someone's description of an albino assailant to claim the white guy accused of hitting him was innocent, while claiming the real assailant was a black man. 

P.S. People routinely misremember what shocks them. A shock elicits an emotional response. Emotions blur recollections. By way of example, people who were suddenly attacked routinely recall their attacker as being bigger and more menacing in appearance than they actually appeared. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The bottom line here is, did Dino Brugioni "mis-remember" what he says he saw.  He said that he was shocked and everyone gasped at the head shot(s).  You don't mis-remember what you've been shocked by.

 

Horne asked Brugioni how sure he was -- on a scale of 1 to 10 -- that the flying debris he'd seen in '63 was far different than what he was seeing in the extant copy.

His reply? Ten.

 

22 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The film was altered.

 

Of course it was! Anybody with good eyes and good sense can see that.

Look at other photos of JFK and Jackie that day in Dallas and you will see that her hair that day was darker than his. Then look at Z313, at the back of JFK's head. Compare how dark that is to the same side of Jackie's head. Amazingly the "hair" is darker on Kennedy's head.

Somebody has darkened the back of Kennedy's head.

That should be proof enough for the anti-alterationists, given that they believe in photographic evidence over witnesses.

Though the color logarithmic scan that Keven has posted makes the alteration obvious.

In the Brugioni video he suggested the use of a densitometer to prove the alteration. I recall that member Andrej Stancak once did just that, and did confirm it was an alteration.

Of course, it's impossible to change the minds of anti-alterationists, with their tightly held preconceived notions.

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Kevin Balch writes:

Quote

Brugioni does NOT report any material coming out the rear of the skull but only upward and forward.

Also, where was the limo stop?

Two good points there! Paul Bacon's reply should be interesting to read, if he can think of a way to rescue Brugioni's decades-after-the-event recollections. If he can't, I assume he will be brave enough to admit that Brugioni, like everyone else, was liable to misremember details of an event which happened decades earlier, and that those recollections are flimsy evidence for something as potentially important as the topic of this thread.

Kevin's points need to be addressed by the everything-is-a-fake brigade. If you claim that Brugioni's recollections must have been accurate, how do you account for those parts which contradict your pet belief?

[Paul Bacon]

Brugioni said he was shocked at the size of the explosion, indeed, they all were.  They were looking for evidence of how many shots and from which direction, but what they saw at that moment, was a huge explosion from JFK's head.  I would certainly be shocked by it, and I'd remember it--seeing a huge white cloud shoot up out of the top of Kennedy's head!?  Four feet in the air!?  None of which we see in the extant film.

I sincerely doubt that, that night, they were getting up close and personal like we do, these days, parsing the number of hairs on his head, which direction he was facing, which bullet hit where, and which one hit first, etc.  That would come later--with a real analysis.  That was done at Hawkeye Works--and they realized they had a big problem.

Notice, too, Brugioni pointing out to Doug that strange, ultra-black paint job on the back of K's head--like he's seeing it for the first time!  Bullseye, Dino, strange phenomena indeed!--yes, that was a former hole, out of which Kennedy's brains blasted hard against the motorcycle cops to the left of the back of the limo!

[Kevin Balch]

Of the three copies made at the Jameson plant in Dallas on Friday afternoon/evening, weren't they made at 3 different contrasts, one to reflect the original and the other two with more and less contrast? Is it possible that Brugioni did not see the camera original but one of the copies with a different contrast setting that may have altered the color and size of the cloud as well as the shadow/“black hole”?

I also wonder what information is lost (and what is added) when a film is digitally scanned and then displayed on a monitor.

Was a densitometer analysis ever made of the “black hole”? Did Josiah Thompson notice it when he had access to the original in 1967? Why was he even given access?

I wish Brugioni had been asked if Bridgehead had the capability to do what is ascribed to them with the equipment they had which I have cited in a history of Bridgehead seems unlikely.

I think it’s possible that a few select frames could have been removed (though I don’t think it likely).

 

Edited 15 hours ago by Kevin Balch

[Jean Ceulemans]

A few remarks, and perhaps something to keep in mind.
The original 8mm negative frames are each less than 5.00 mm x 3.5 mm (just imagine how small JKF’s head is on the negative, or any other of the details).
I have handled a bunch of those film in order to digitize them (local history conservation project).
First, please forget about getting a really sharp still image from those… won’t happen.
Second, these films are made to be projected on a screen at a pretty fast speed (your brains are running fast as well, filling in the blanks).  Like it or not, but it’s partially an optical illusion. 
BUT to show the best result, the display on the screen should be approx. (and about maximum)  8.5 by 11 inches only !  Yes, you can go bigger, but you’ll loose a lot of details. Forget what you see in certain films...
The size of the prints made for the boards are approx. the size of the best size display on a screen.  A little bigger or smaller is possible.
Now imagine changing the contrast on such a small item, touch it a little and results change drastically, often you’ll see it’s useless.  If, in addition, you’re going to display it somewhat larger, you’ll be looking at a different low quality B-film… 
Just wanted to point out how small those things are, and how they are supposed to be displayed to get the best optical result.  
 

Edited 8 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans

[Chris Davidson]

Alvarez combined with Alvarez equals the WC.
Do you see the limo disappearing, right before your eyes?
 

 

 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

21 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Alvarez combined with Alvarez equals the WC.
Do you see the limo disappearing, right before your eyes?
 

 

 

 

The orange table on the right is WC? Ref? My memory is letting me down, been a while to remember the calculus.

[Chris Davidson]

Document CE884

Unpublished version.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I see the copy-and-paste guy is back again! Keven appears to be worked up about comments I made back in January and February. That's been festering away for some time, hasn't it?

Keven writes:

Quote

Mr. Bojczuk's position that the pink halo that appears in Zapruder frame 313 is also present in Z-314 through Z-316 is demonstrably false

Brain matter is visible even in relatively poor-quality copies of frames 313, 314, 315, and 316. Here we are again:

• Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
• Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

Obviously, Mr. Bojczuk, my thoroughly documented evidence packed posts have gotten under your skin...

Don't be discouraged. Some of us have done the intellectually rigorous work of getting to the bottom of these matters, while others, such as yourself, are relegated to regurgitating the silly propaganda of articles such as the following, which you presented in one of your earliest posts on this thread:

http://22november1963.org.uk/zapruder-film-genuine-or-fake

The problem with that article -- about which you seem not to have the slightest idea -- is that it is about 90% easily disprovable blatant propaganda, and about 10% half-truths. No wonder you repeat the same nonsense over and over again, with minor modifications in terminology to attempt to make it tenable after seeing same shot down again and again. I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

And to the contrary, your dissemination of the same propaganda -- including your admission that you were citing books you have not even read -- in your posts of January and February, are not of particular concern.  What is of concern is the suppressed premise of your comment, that I have not responded to them, when the fact is that it is you that has not responded to a whole slew of my posts. Did you really think I wasn't going to call you out for such a deceptive effort to make it appear that I have been unresponsive, when it is actually you who has repeatedly crawled away from our encounters with your tail between your legs?

The following are the posts that I directed to you to which you have failed to respond. I'm still waiting.

1/21/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526523

2/14/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528516

2/14/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528541

2/20/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528872

2/20/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528874

2/20/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528877

2/20/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30150-the-logic-of-zapruder-film-alteration/?do=findComment&comment=528886

7/17/2024: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30511-the-zapruder-film-and-npichawkeyeworks-mysteries/?do=findComment&comment=542154

 

Now, as to your renewed effort to manipulate the terminology of the 'pink halo' appearing only in Z-313...

You do understand, don't you, that the issue with regard to Zapruder frames 312 through 316 that keeps coming up between you and I is whether or not the pink halo (or pink cloud) appears in frame 313 alone or whether it appears in 313 and in additional subsequent frames?

Do you understand or not?

If you do understand, then why do you keep attempting to manipulate the terms of the debate from 'pink halo' to 'skull fragments,' and now to 'brain matter'?

I would say that the fact that you have omitted the Zapruder frame with the actual pink halo among the Costello collection links you have presented above is a very good indication that you are well aware of what it is, or else you wouldn't be attempting to divert attention from it by omitting it.

So let's look at Costella collection link Z-313, to review exactly what it is you are attempting to conceal from your readers:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

Z-313, even from the aged inferior quality Costello collection, demonstrates that the pink halo is well-defined, open and notorious compared to the greatly dissipated remnants that remain in frames 314 through 316, the links for which you did include in your post.

But to fully appreciate the pink halo, as well as the differences between the individual frames that follow, we must turn our attention to frames from a first-generation copy (generation-zero being the extant "original" Zapruder film), which is the 1995 MPI Images of an Assassination first generation copy of the Zapruder film, as follows:

Clearly, the pink halo is obvious and well defined in Z-313, but not in the subsequent frames, but what is the significance of this? Consider that these four frames represent 4/18th of one second in passage of time, which is equivalent to the blink of an eye. How could Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis have possibly seen what she describes in the following in 1/18th of one second?

In motion, we get the following which does not even remotely resemble what Mrs. Willis described:

And with regard to Dino Brugioni: At NPIC, the evening of 11/23/1963, he and his staff first viewed this on an 8mm projector, and were shocked by the cloud and pieces of biological debris ejected from President Kennedy's head (which we do not see in the film today, as confirmed by Brugioni himself):

Dino Brugioni Commenting on Z-313 and Z-317 -- Heretofore Unseen Footage From Doug Horne Interview

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

• Keven Hofeling wrote:

Quote

1/18th of one second is a supernaturally short time for the cloud to exist, and indicates that frames have been removed ... the pink cloud dissipates at an artificially rapid rate

If Keven is claiming that the brain matter must have taken longer to disperse than we see in the film, he needs to produce some evidence and argument to justify that claim. Until he does so, it's just an empty assertion.

That's nonsense. Dino Brugioni's testimony in this regard -- even fifty years after the fact -- and the many other accounts of blood, brain and skull being blasted out of the back of President Kennedy's head which is completely absent from the extant "original" Zapruder film today, constitutes by far superior evidence and argument than that presented by naysayers, armchair critics and Zapruder film authenticity apologists like yourself.

__________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).

"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13

__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).

 

__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs

__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________

"...AND THE NEXT THING THAT I REMEMBERED CLEARLY WAS THE SHOT THAT HIT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US, OR ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US, THAT HIT HIM ON THE SIDE OF HIS FACE ... ABOVE THE EAR AND TO THE FRONT ... AND, WE COULD SEE HIS BRAINS COME OUT, YOU KNOW, HIS HEAD OPENING..."

Dealey Plaza witness, Marilyn Sitzman (Abraham Zapruder's secretary) interviewed in 1966 by Josiah Thompson for 'Six Seconds in Dallas' (1967).

__________

"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.

__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. 

__________

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Keven Hofeling wrote:

Quote

The method of the madness of critics and lone nutter advocates such as Mr. Bojczuk, Mr. Gram, and Mr. Cohen ... 

As far as I'm aware, none of the people Keven mentions are "lone nutter advocates". This is an accusation which other everything-is-a-fake advocates have made in the past, and which tells us something about their mentality. Keven seems to think that the only alternative to the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself interpretation is that there was a massive conspiracy by all-powerful Bad Guys who faked the evidence on a scale never seen in any assassination before or since. As I asked earlier, is there evidence that anything like the alteration of the Zapruder film has ever happened in any other assassination since the advent of photography? No such evidence has yet been produced.

I'm sorry to disappoint Keven, but it's perfectly possible for a group of conspirators to assassinate a politician without going on to fake a load of evidence, let alone faking the single most important piece of evidence which demonstrates the existence of that conspiracy.

 

 

Mr. Cohen is a lone nutter advocate as far as I can tell, and given the reliance upon the exact same myths, arguments and critical literature, it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish Zapruder film authenticity apologists from lone nutters and the limited hangout operatives that covertly support the machinations (falsified evidence) of the government cover-up of the 1963 coup by attempting to label themselves as "conspiracy theorists."

Jeremy Bojczuk wrote:

"This is an accusation which other everything-is-a-fake advocates have made in the past, and which tells us something about their mentality. Keven seems to think that the only alternative to the Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself interpretation is that there was a massive conspiracy by all-powerful Bad Guys who faked the evidence on a scale never seen in any assassination before or since."

These kinds of straw man assertions are inherently suspect, as is the notion that photographic and other types of evidence is somehow immune from falsification by state actors conducting false flag operations. Equally suspect is the notion that the spycraft involved would not be subject to being coveted as closely held highly classified secrets by the state actors which perpetrate the operations, being concealed at all costs, including by the use of covert operatives trained and funded by state security services to deny the very existence of such operations.

And that is what the JFK assassination was and is, a false flag operation designed to conceal a coup de tat as either an act of war conducted by Cuba and the Soviet Union, or as a domestic crime perpetrated by a lone highly disturbed Lee Harvey Oswald. The assassination of President Kennedy was unique in that it was carried out by the leadership of the U.S. national security establishment (CIA and JCS), and there are not similar examples of consensus assassinations with which to compare with other like false flag operations, but there are an abundance of historical false flag operations with which to compare to the assassination which include similar spycraft, including falsification of evidence, which include but are certainly not limited to the following examples:

__________

Israeli victims' families denounce NY Times 'Hamas rape' report

Deconstructing the Gaza "sex crimes" propaganda

__________

BBC, CNN News Caught Staging FAKE News Chemical Attacks In Syria (2013)

__________

Webster Tarpley: Syria "civil war" actually CIA false flag operation

__________

False Iraq War Intelligence Fed to Journalists (2003)

__________

Experts Conclude Bin Laden Tape Fake : https://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-tape-appears-fake-experts-conclude/2555

__________

Baby Incubator Lies Used to Start 1991 Iraq War

__________

The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident: The Lie That Sparked The Vietnam War (allthatsinteresting.com)

CIA invention of South Vietnam (Operation Grand Illusion): Vietnam excerpted from the book Heroes by John Pilger (thirdworldtraveler.com)

__________

Vincent J. Salandria on history of false flag operations including JFK assassination -- The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes: False Mystery: The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes, 1998 (ratical.org)

__________

The short and simple of this, Mr. Bojczuk, is that there is such a wealth of historical information about false flag operations and the propaganda, disinformation and falsification of evidence involved that your denials of this reality, like virtually every other contention I have ever seen you make, are highly suspect, and naïve at best.

 

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm sorry to disappoint Keven, but it's perfectly possible for a group of conspirators to assassinate a politician without going on to fake a load of evidence, let alone faking the single most important piece of evidence which demonstrates the existence of that conspiracy.

No, I don't think so. Straight up, in the context of a CIA black op to execute the President of the United States which entailed a total and complete deception involving the nature and location of the fatal wounds, and would be at risk of unraveling as the result of widespread public photographic documentation of the crime, I don't believe it would have been possible without photographic falsification given what was at stake, and given that the intelligence services involved were highly competent.

Exhibit A is the back of the head head autopsy photograph which, exactly like the extant Zapruder film, has disappeared the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound that was attested to by nearly FIFTY witnesses, who were in large part law-enforcement and medical professionals. And in addition to that testimonial evidence, said alteration is corroborated by by the stereographic testing of Dr. David Mantik conducted at the National Archives.

Now perhaps you can regurgitate some yarns about the authenticity of these autopsy photos in response, Mr. Bojczuk? Maybe try to sell us on some lone nutter 'flap' fantasies?

 

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Keven Hofeling wrote:

Quote

is to advocate that we remove events from their natural context, and consider them in isolation, confined to the altered evidence itself, which devolves the discussion of same to an exercise of circular reasoning, and reliance upon the altered evidence itself as corroboration for the very same altered evidence, thereby excluding from consideration both the expert and eyewitness testimony which falsifies the altered evidence.

No, there is no circular reasoning involved. No-one is claiming that "the altered evidence itself [corroborates] the very same altered evidence". The claim is in two parts:

• the evidence that has been put forward is insufficient to demonstrate alteration (for example, it is uncontroversial that eye-witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes), and
• superior evidence demonstrates that the film hasn't been altered (for example, the fact that the film in the national archives is the same physical film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination).

True, eyewitnesses get stuff wrong sometimes, but not dozens of them. When dozens of witnesses contest the accuracy of photographic evidence in court proceedings, it is excluded from evidence except to prove fraud.

And you are wrong as well about your contention that it has been proven that the extant film was proven to have been taken in Abraham Zapruder's Bell & Howell 8mm camera. In a fashion similar to the HSCA making the Bethesda autopsy camera disappear when their efforts to match it to the autopsy photographs failed, the National Archives refused the ARRB's request to allow Roland Zavada to conduct testing to match the Bell & Howell camera to be matched to the extant Zapruder film, and much to Doug Horne's chagrin, Zavada refused to push the issue.

 

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Keven Hofeling wrote: "...he goes further by claiming that the extant Zapruder film depicts none of that [alleged horizontal debris] whatsoever simply because the shutter speed of Abraham Zapruder's camera was too slow to capture any of that imagery..."

Keven fails to understand the point I made several months ago (has this really been bubbling away inside his head since January?). During each exposure cycle of Zapruder's camera, the shutter was closed for slightly longer than it was open. The amount of time the shutter was closed between frames 313 and 314 was more than enough for any horizontal debris to fly out of sight; for details, see my comment from January. The fact that the film didn't capture any horizontal debris does not imply that the film was altered.

It's interesting that Keven hasn't actually put forward an actual argument against the point I made. He merely copies and pastes accounts by people who were hit by brain matter, without explaining why those accounts require the film to have been altered. Of course, those accounts are perfectly compatible with an unaltered film.

Gaslighting with a touch of attempted psychological warfare are the only terms that accurately describe the above. The witness testimony showing the ridiculousness of Mr. Bojczuk's assertions that Abraham Zapruder's camera missed all of the blood, brain and skull that was ejected from President Kennedy's head to the rear and left of the limousine because the shutter was closed for a crucial fraction of a millisecond is set forth above in this post. The notion defies credulity to such an extent that it is an insult to our collective intelligence.

As we see here there is not even the slightest indication of the occipital-parietal wound attested to by nearly FIFTY witnesses, most of whom were law-enforcement and medical professionals, and not the slightest indication of any of the blood, brain and skull being ejected to the rear and left of the limo attested to by the witnesses listed above and others. Instead, we just see the black patch covering the large avulsive defect in the back of President Kennedy's head that Hollywood cinematographer Paul Rutan says wouldn't even fool young children. It clearly fools you, so what does that tell us?

 

On 8/6/2024 at 5:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Here is Keven's homework for tonight:

1. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that "the pink cloud dissipates at an artificially rapid rate".
2. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that the Zapruder film must have captured any horizontal debris.
3. Produce some evidence and argument to justify his claim that anyone who questions the everything-is-a-fake nonsense must be a lone-nutter.

You are such a hoot, Mr. Bojczuk, being so presumptuous as to attempt to issue me an assignment when it is obvious that your judgment is so bad I wouldn't be able to trust you to mow my lawns...

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[Kevin Balch]

Marilyn Willis says the cloud was red, Dino Brugioni says it was white in the version of the Zapruder film he worked with.

Wasn’t Marilyn Willis perhaps 75 feet behind where the head shot took place?

Who to believe?

Edited 4 hours ago by Kevin Balch