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 4 hours ago by Kevin Balch

[Pat Speer]

10 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 to be innocent, while claiming the real assailant was a black man. 

P.S. People routinely misremember what they were shocked by. A shock elicits an emotional response. Emotions blur recollections. People who were suddenly attacked routinely recall their attacker as being bigger and more menacing in appearance than the reality, for example. 

Edited 22 minutes ago by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

9 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.

 

9 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 help preconceived notions.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sandy Larsen