The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In case Roger genuinely can't see why his evidence-free speculation is worthless, let me offer an analogy.

1. People have spent the best part of half a century pointing out anomalies in the moon-landings photographs.
2. Even though nothing approaching proof of forgery has been found, people wouldn't have spent that long searching for anomalies unless the photos had been faked in some way.
3. Clearly the moon landings didn't happen, and the photos are fakes.
4. The only official body that could have forged the moon-landings photographs is NASA.
5. We know when and where NASA forged the photographs, because some guy was interviewed by a moon-landings denier decades later, and the guy recalled that he had heard from someone else that the photos were forged at NASA's top-secret photo-forging plant. And this guy is thoroughly believable because he admitted that he was a recovering alcoholic and drug-addict and that his memory was unreliable.
6. Officials at NASA had every reason to cover up their forgery of those photographs at the top-secret plant disclosed by the guy with the memory problems.
7. The fact that no evidence exists of NASA's involvement in the forgery, proves that NASA did in fact destroy that evidence.
8. It's silly to insist on seeing evidence that NASA officials discussed forging the moon-landings photographs! They would have destroyed any such evidence!
9. Therefore, speculation will do, and I can make up any story I like!

And that's not even to mention that...

10. An 80 year-old former NASA employee recalled seeing some photos in which the moon was more rugged than it is in the currently-available  photos.

And 

11. Those pushing (and selling) that the moon-landing was faked use his recollection of seeing slightly different photos to support a theory holding that what he actually saw was a smooth marble floor. 

 

When his recollections--along with their response to his recollections--suggests a different scenario entirely... That it's all a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger Odisio writes:

Followed by lots and lots of speculation.

The reason I claimed that there is no evidence that any such discussion took place is that Roger has provided no actual, verifiable, documentary evidence that any such discussion took place.

If Roger doesn't want to do any research, to try to dig out any relevant evidence, maybe we should ask why Douglas Horne, originator of the speculative Hawkeye Works notion, appears to have done no such research himself.

Are there any official records, such as memos or phone call transcriptions, in which high-ranking officials discuss the Zapruder film at all on the Saturday? What about memoirs written by officials? Oral history interviews? Anything?

If any such records exist, do they give us any reason to suspect that anyone in authority, prior to the NPIC event on the Saturday, considered that the Zapruder film might be a serious obstacle to the 'Oswald did it' explanation?

In the absence of any such evidence, there is no reason to suppose that the examination of a version of the Zapruder film on the Saturday was motivated by any need to impose the 'Oswald did it' explanation.

Have you forgotten, Jeremy?  Early in this discussion, when you were claiming the Z film *couldn't* have been altered, you said one reason was because the extant film still contained evidence that contradicted the Oswald story.  That reason was nonsense.  Failure to conceal all things  incriminating does not mean alteration wasn't tried.  But it is true the extant film contains both evidence of alteration and things that contradict the Oswald story.  I have avoided discussing those things in this thead because they are talked about a lot in other threads.  Instead I have tried to discern the logic of what happened.

Now you're back contradicting your own point.  Absent the "evidence" you keep disingenuously calling for, you say there is no reason to suspect "anyone in authority"  (read Johnson and the CIA, the high officials responsible for determining what happened who ordered the boards)  had any reason to suspect the Z film contradicted their Oswald story.  I assume you accept the fact that it was these same officials who had already circulated the Oswald story.  E.g., the messages from the White House Situation Room the day of the murder to officials coming back to DC that fingered Oswald as the lone assassin.

I assume you understand and accept as fact that Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters from different directions and that the Z film must have captured that.  Which would of course contradict the Oswald story.  If you don't accept that please say so. 

Yet somehow you now claim that there is no reason to think the Saturday briefing boards prepared for these authorities (Brugioni's boards--are you now admitting they once existed?) were motivated by a need to see if the Z film contradicted their Oswald story and if so to what extent.   

If that's not the reason, is there another, more logical reason for Johnson and the CIA to have ordered the boards? You don't say.

Instead you rely once again on the claim that, all logic aside, there is no *documentary* reason to suppose seeing what the Z film showed about their Oswald story is what motivated doing the boards.  By which you mean the CIA has produced no documents that verify why they ordered the boards to be made.  The myopia underlying this reasoning is astonishing.

 

  

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

And if there was nothing sinister about the NPIC event on the Saturday, there is no reason to take seriously the notion that anything at all happened at Hawkeye Works on the Sunday.

Until Roger, or Horne, or anyone else, presents some verifiable documentary evidence that the examination of the Zapruder film on the Saturday was part of a plan to impose the 'Oswald did it' explanation, we are left with a perfectly plausible scenario: the film taken to NPIC on the Saturday was the Secret Service's first-day copy which had arrived in Washington that morning.

There is nothing plausible about accepting that the SS copy was used for the boards at NPIC unless your claim is first accepted that the purpose of doing the boards was not to find out if the film contradicted their Oswald story, but something else (that maybe some day you'll get around to explaining).  If, however,  the purpose of doing the boards was to find out to what extent the Z film contradicted their Oswald story, it would make no sense to have used a copy for the boards while letting Life publish stills from the original in their magazine.  If the boards showed contradiction altering or destroying the copy you claim was used would make no sense.  They would be left without a possible remedy.  That would require using the original for the boards and if a problem was found, deal with it, while rounding up all copies made from the original. 

Which is what they did.  The film was altered and Life went back to Zapruder to buy the remaining copy he had which was made from the original.  It was the last vestige of what the original Z film showed..  The other two copies were held by the SS and FBI.   

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's the bottom line:

We know that there are alterations in the F film because:

1. Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.
2. The color-logarithmic copy of the Z film clearly shows a painted-on black area on the back of Kennedy's head after frame 313, the edges of which are obviously unnatural in some of the frames.

We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

However, it doesn't hurt to theorize on how the alterations were made, and what other alterations were made.

Douglas Horne has a perfectly viable theory as to how the alterations were made. Roger Odisio and Keven Hofeling have been defending Horne's theory.

Jeremy Bojczuk, Tom Gram, and others have been arguing against Horne's theory. The most repeated argument I've seen is that the theory includes some speculation, and that that somehow invalidates the argument.

The truth is, ALL theories include speculation. Without any speculation, they wouldn't be theories at all but rather statements of fact.

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.

After each such step, adherents of the theory should reevaluate the strength of the theory. The strength of a theory is determined roughly by what percentage of it's data points is backed by evidence and not speculation.

 

Horne's theory is the only one I know of that can explain the Z-film alterations we are certain of. Speculation isn't great, but there certainly is some. McMahon's testimony isn't ironclad, but it is more likely to be true than not, given that it gives a reasonable outcome and not some random gibberish.

I believe that Horne's theory is probably correct or close to it.

I believe that most, if not all, researchers who strongly disagree with Horne's theory are probably anti-alterationists.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy hit the nail on the head: the prior issue to this entire discussion is a question as simple in formulation as it is seemingly extraordinarily difficult to resolve conclusively: is there conclusive evidence--not possibility, not could-be, not maybe, but conclusive, unambiguous evidence--that the existing Zapruder film copy generations have been altered or tampered with in their origin.

If there IS--"if"--conclusive evidence of early-origin tampering or alteration in the film--THEN, since it did happen (as proven by the conclusive evidence that it did), one looks to find the when, where, how, and why. It would have to have been about the first weekend, and as Jeremy admits, nearly anything in the end is possible that is not specifically airtight excluded--it could be some form of this Hawkeye and Brugioni story. Doesn't matter that there is not documentary evidence, or positive evidence for it from that weekend, IF it is conclusive on film examination grounds that there WAS deception/alteration done on that film at the origin of today's copies.

But how are questions of allegations of tampering or forgery on something of this nature to be determined? What is the correct method to find a correct answer to the question?

Many probably won't like this but this is the only best-practices workable and reasonable method: via peer-review of specialists in the relevant fields of expertise, in the scientific journals publication process and system.

It has to be that route and method. It is not that once in five hundred times in history there are not freak exceptions. And if one is knowledgeable in a field and an expert personally (for real, not simply imagined or asserted), then and only then is it legitimate to bypass that. I know in my field, Qumran texts, how screwed up certain longlasting scholarly beliefs are, how certain assumed facts are not facts at all, and I know that personally from firsthand expertise. I have published my arguments on some things (e.g. "Dating the Qumran Scroll Deposits: a Question of Evidence", http://www.scrollery.com), but I do not publish those things for public audiences, nor expect or want public audiences to be persuaded prior to vetting through the discussion and conclusions of peers to whom my arguments are addressed. 

But in the case of the Zapruder film, there are sweeping claims--I have no idea whether any might be true or not--but what I can see is none have been vetted through published peer review in any substantial way. To claim there are experts with evidence unpublished for decades in their hip pockets which they have still not published--but trust them, they say they have it--this is a recipe for gullibility. It is the same with claims of sensational new document finds which, for some strange reason, the ones profiting financially from belief in their authenticity seem unwilling to submit to independent forensic evaluation and analysis to answer the forgery question before anything else, done in an open, scientific manner with published results. The same "red flags" antenna reaction. 

I think most in the non-alteration camp would be open to proof of alteration of Zapruder if proof were shown in a form, not sufficient to convince a lay or amateur reader (like most of us reading this), but sufficient to persuade experts in the relevant fields who will state for the record that they are convinced. I don't see that happening in any significant way. It comes down to a question and judgment of evidence and proof.

With that in mind, I would like to end with a personal specific question on one alteration allegation claim. It is the claim that the existing Zapruder film shows the driver, Greer, turning his head back and forward too rapidly beyond human ability to move that fast. 

I have seen that allegation many times. Can Jeremy or anyone who is more up to speed on these issues, direct to a refutation or rebuttal of that allegation, if it has been rebutted or refuted? Or if not, give a brief, one-paragraph, version of a rebuttal here? (Without meaning to derail this thread?) I would appreciate it (I assume a few others listening in might too)--thanks.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Here's the bottom line:

We know that there are alterations in the F film because:

1. Not a single witness to Kennedy's head wound saw the gaping wound centered on Kennedy's right temple as can be seen in the Z film. This in spite of the fact that the number of corroborating head-wound witnesses is numerous.
2. The color-logarithmic copy of the Z film clearly shows a painted-on black area on the back of Kennedy's head after frame 313, the edges of which are obviously unnatural in some of the frames.

We need no further evidence to prove that the film has been altered.

However, it doesn't hurt to theorize on how the alterations were made, and what other alterations were made.

Douglas Horne has a perfectly viable theory as to how the alterations were made. Roger Odisio and Keven Hofeling have been defending Horne's theory.

Jeremy Bojczuk, Tom Gram, and others have been arguing against Horne's theory. The most repeated argument I've seen is that the theory includes some speculation, and that that somehow invalidates the argument.

The truth is, ALL theories include speculation. Without any speculation, they wouldn't be theories at all but rather statements of fact.

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.

After each such step, adherents of the theory should reevaluate the strength of the theory. The strength of a theory is determined roughly by what percentage of it's data points is backed by evidence and not speculation.

 

Horne's theory is the only one I know of that can explain the Z-film alterations we are certain of. Speculation isn't great, but there certainly is some. McMahon's testimony isn't ironclad, but it is more likely to be true than not, given that it gives a reasonable outcome and not some random gibberish.

I believe that Horne's theory is probably correct or close to it.

I believe that most, if not all, researchers who strongly disagree with Horne's theory are probably anti-alterationists.