Zapruder Film Alteration

[Pat Speer]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not. As Len suggests, there were no pre-1964 films with inserts and mattes as seamless as the Z-film. As a Valley kid growing up in the sixties, I would make a yearly trek down to Universal Studios, our local amusement park. While most kids were fascinated by The Munsters set or the Western stunt show, my favorite part as I remember was a demonstration on how Hitchcock filmed The Birds. This was state-of-the-art stuff; nevertheless, to today's critical eye, much of the action looks fake.

As most of you know by now, I spent two years analyzing the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film (for content, not so much for authenticity). I found that they are consistent and demonstrate the same wounds. I found that, furthermore, the timing of these wounds on the Z-film suggests (no, more than suggests--darn near PROVES) there was more than one shooter firing from behind. From this, I have come to the uncomfortable (and largely unpopular) opinion that all this study of photo alteration, x-ray alteration, and z-film alteration has been a HUGE RED HERRING. (No, I'm not accusing anyone of being a disinfo agent...) It's just that the Fox photos have been available to the research community for almost 20 years now, and most everyone has spent so much time trying to prove they are wrong (because they don't show what people want them to show) that little time has been spent on figuring out what they actually reveal. I'd like to think I've reversed that trend.

[John Dolva]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not. As Len suggests, there were no pre-1964 films with inserts and mattes as seamless as the Z-film. As a Valley kid growing up in the sixties, I would make a yearly trek down to Universal Studios, our local amusement park. While most kids were fascinated by The Munsters set or the Western stunt show, my favorite part as I remember was a demonstration on how Hitchcock filmed The Birds. This was state-of-the-art stuff; nevertheless, to today's critical eye, much of the action looks fake.

As most of you know by now, I spent two years analyzing the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film (for content, not so much for authenticity). I found that they are consistent and demonstrate the same wounds. I found that, furthermore, the timing of these wounds on the Z-film suggests (no, more than suggests--darn near PROVES) there was more than one shooter firing from behind. From this, I have come to the uncomfortable (and largely unpopular) opinion that all this study of photo alteration, x-ray alteration, and z-film alteration has been a HUGE RED HERRING. (No, I'm not accusing anyone of being a disinfo agent...) It's just that the Fox photos have been available to the research community for almost 20 years now, and most everyone has spent so much time trying to prove they are wrong (because they don't show what people want them to show) that little time has been spent on figuring out what they actually reveal. I'd like to think I've reversed that trend.

Personally I think you are correct, Pat. (If all this alteration took place then the people who did it are probably found in the list of people of former SFX'ers employed by Lucas and former because they would certainly have been able to command a salary that would retire them to some sweet spot somewhere.)

The conspiracy appears quite revealed by the available material and the attraction for alteration theories either guided by what is wanted rather than what is.

-Or guided by the tendency to accept unquestioned the interpreatations of others, particularly wehen it's something so complex as visual data which has 'fluxlike' qualities involving perspective, colour and luminance values etc.

-Another factor is the proliferation of interpretations that generates new data in the form of innocently altered imagery that is laterused by others to build on. Going back to the source which unfortunately presents the material in less than original format only makes it more difficult but not impossible.

A courageous position by you that I think those serious about the case in an an equanimous way will have no difficulty accepting as a possibility.

I'm currently trying to look at the evidence in this way. The journey unguided by pre judice is an interesting one.

Edited December 12, 2005 by John Dolva

[Len Colby]

While I've always tried to stay open-minded on this subject, the more time I spend around actual photographers and film-makers, the more I'm convinced the technology, albeit in an infant stage, existed in 1964 to so cleverly fake a film, but that the technical skills did not. As Len suggests, there were no pre-1964 films with inserts and mattes as seamless as the Z-film. As a Valley kid growing up in the sixties, I would make a yearly trek down to Universal Studios, our local amusement park. While most kids were fascinated by The Munsters set or the Western stunt show, my favorite part as I remember was a demonstration on how Hitchcock filmed The Birds. This was state-of-the-art stuff; nevertheless, to today's critical eye, much of the action looks fake.

As most of you know by now, I spent two years analyzing the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film (for content, not so much for authenticity). I found that they are consistent and demonstrate the same wounds. I found that, furthermore, the timing of these wounds on the Z-film suggests (no, more than suggests--darn near PROVES) there was more than one shooter firing from behind. From this, I have come to the uncomfortable (and largely unpopular) opinion that all this study of photo alteration, x-ray alteration, and z-film alteration has been a HUGE RED HERRING. (No, I'm not accusing anyone of being a disinfo agent...) It's just that the Fox photos have been available to the research community for almost 20 years now, and most everyone has spent so much time trying to prove they are wrong (because they don't show what people want them to show) that little time has been spent on figuring out what they actually reveal. I'd like to think I've reversed that trend.

Pat - Since you are (or at least were) interested in the technology and have already closely studied the Z-film and the photographic record I would be curious to find out if you were convinced by the book and magazines cited by Dave Healy. In any case I am sure they will be a lot easier for you to find in LA than for me here in Brazil.

You seem level headed so I would trust your interpretation as to whether the book and magazine show that such an alteration was possible. Still if Dave can't cite a single film from the period my impression would be that such alteration might have been possible in theory but not in practice.

Actually I would be interested in the opinion of anyone (who didn't work with Fetzer) who looks at "Dave's" book and magazines as to whether they prove anything.

Len

P.S. I'm a nembie what are the 'Fox photos'

[Pat Speer]

Pat - Since you are (or at least were) interested in the technology and have already closely studied the Z-film and the photographic record I would be curious to find out if you were convinced by the book and magazines cited by Dave Healy. In any case I am sure they will be a lot easier for you to find in LA than for me here in Brazil.

You seem level headed so I would trust your interpretation as to whether the book and magazine show that such an alteration was possible. Still if Dave can't cite a single film from the period my impression would be that such alteration might have been possible in theory but not in practice.

Actually I would be interested in the opinion of anyone (who didn't work with Fetzer) who looks at "Dave's" book and magazines as to whether they prove anything.

Len

P.S. I'm a nembie what are the 'Fox photos'

No, I haven't read much on flim alteration, outside of a few articles online, Jack White's article on the Z-film hoax in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and most of Fetzer's book. I decided I didn't want to get sucked into that discussion. What's important to me is that I get as many people as possible to agree that the z-film, x-rays, and autopsy photos are firm evidence for multiple shooters, irregardless if they have been altered. What bugs me the most about the arguments for alteration is that they send a clear signal to a newbie or a newsman, for that matter, that the research community agrees with the mainstream media and the lone-nut community that the evidence taken at face value suggests only one shooter. In my presentation I attempted to demonstrate that this simply isn't true! I still have hopes that Fetzer, Healey, Mantik, White, Groden, Livingstone and others will come to agree.

Len, the Fox photos are the black and white autopsy photos available on the internet. They were given to a researcher named Mark Crouch by a former photographer for the Secret Service, James Fox. Fox made copies a few days after the assassination and made a set for himself. The color photos on the internet came from Robert Groden, who'd been an unpaid photo analyst for the HSCA, and who'd made a few copies while no one was looking... Since Blakey has to my knowledge never denounced Groden for his sneakiness, I suspect that on some level Blakey approved, and wanted the photos to be seen by the public, which is yet another reason I defened Blakey when people imply he was part of some plot.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

Groden was NOT an UNPAID photoanalyst for HSCA.

Dick Sprague and I were.

However, Dick and I WERE paid $200 a day per diem

plus expenses when were were required to go to

Washington. Groden worked there daily, so far as I

know.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There is so much rubbish said on this forum and elsewhere that I want to

take this opportunity to compliment someone who says something sensible

for a change! I gather that Pat Speer and others unnamed are making the

claim that the issue of film alteration is a red herring, which would make it a

deliberate distraction. It really won't do to think up reasons why the movie

cannot have been altered, changed, or recreated WITHOUT LOOKING AT

THE EVIDENCE. This is not a question that can be answered based upon

the intensity of feelings or reasons that are not based upon the features of

the film. Many of the arguments that have been advanced against the very

possibility were refuted already in the Preface to HOAX. Others have been

disproven in the "Film Hoax Debate" archived on my site. So don't be taken

in too easily. Those who think it is unaltered ought to consider the following.

The evidence establishing the recreation of the Zapruder film comes from

many sources, including that frame 212 was published in LIFE with physically

impossible features; that a mistake was made in introducing the Stemmons

Freeway sign into the recreated version; that the "blob" and blood spray was

added on to frame 313; that the driver's head turns occur too rapidly to even

be humanly possible; that the Governor's left turn has been edited out of the

film; that Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported having

observed blood and brains blown out to the back and left when he viewed the

original film; that several Secret Service agents observed brains and blood

on the trunk of the limousine; that others have viewed another and more

complete version of the film; and that Homer McMahon, an expert at the

NPIC, studied a very different film on the very night of the assassination.

Now if Pat Speer and others want to make the case that we are wrong, it

would make sense for them to engage the arguments we have presented.

Let me explain the first mentioned above, since it is very interesting for a

lot of different reasons. When a camera pans (follows) the subject that is

being filmed, it keeps that subject in focus, but background features tend

to be blurred. The amount of the blur can be calculated and is not hard to

measure. If the Z-camera was following the limousine, then features of the

background should be blurred. If the Z-camera was focused on the back-

ground, then features of the limousine should be blurred. But in frame 212,

neither is the case. Specific features of the background that should be blur-

red if the camera was following the limo are not blurred, and other features

of the limousine that should be blurred if the camera was stationary are not

blurred. This could only happen if the limo and the scenery were stationary.

Of course, if the limo and the scenery were stationary, then the film, which

does not show stationary moments, must be a fake. Yet being stationary is

the only way to account for the lack of blur in the background and on the

limousine, which are otherwise physically impossible features. Physically

impossible features cannot possibly occur, because their occurrence would

violate laws of nature. So the frame has to be a fraud. It cannot possibly

be real, since that would require the violation of natural laws. (Think about

the freezing point of water, the melting point of iron, the time of free fall, or

even what happens when you consume more energy than you expend. In

that case, you increase in mass and, in a constant gravitational field, you

increase in weight. I've been trying to violate that one for years but to no

avail!) While I have not been following this thread, if you are not talking

about the evidence, you are not talking about the real issues. Anyone who

wants to get up to speed on these issues, by the way, should visit my web

site at http://www.assassinationscience.com and scroll down to "THE JFK

INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR" and take a look at John Constella's nice work.

The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.

The anomalies are problematic.

[John Dolva]

Jim, it seems to me that there are numerous samples of blurring on the frame 312. The thing with the blurring on this particular frame is that it is almost entirely in the direction of the pan matching the direction of the limo travel. Possibly at this frame the camera was moving in a very stable way and panning in such a way that neither the limo nor the background was focused on. In other words the pan was slower than the limo speed but not stationary, thus the overall apparent blurring on the moving and stationary objects is minimised.

[Jack White]

There is so much rubbish said on this forum and elsewhere that I want to

take this opportunity to compliment someone who says something sensible

for a change! I gather that Pat Speer and others unnamed are making the

claim that the issue of film alteration is a red herring, which would make it a

deliberate distraction. It really won't do to think up reasons why the movie

cannot have been altered, changed, or recreated WITHOUT LOOKING AT

THE EVIDENCE. This is not a question that can be answered based upon

the intensity of feelings or reasons that are not based upon the features of

the film. Many of the arguments that have been advanced against the very

possibility were refuted already in the Preface to HOAX. Others have been

disproven in the "Film Hoax Debate" archived on my site. So don't be taken

in too easily. Those who think it is unaltered ought to consider the following.

The evidence establishing the recreation of the Zapruder film comes from

many sources, including that frame 212 was published in LIFE with physically

impossible features; that a mistake was made in introducing the Stemmons

Freeway sign into the recreated version; that the "blob" and blood spray was

added on to frame 313; that the driver's head turns occur too rapidly to even

be humanly possible; that the Governor's left turn has been edited out of the

film; that Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported having

observed blood and brains blown out to the back and left when he viewed the

original film; that several Secret Service agents observed brains and blood

on the trunk of the limousine; that others have viewed another and more

complete version of the film; and that Homer McMahon, an expert at the

NPIC, studied a very different film on the very night of the assassination.

Now if Pat Speer and others want to make the case that we are wrong, it

would make sense for them to engage the arguments we have presented.

Let me explain the first mentioned above, since it is very interesting for a

lot of different reasons. When a camera pans (follows) the subject that is

being filmed, it keeps that subject in focus, but background features tend

to be blurred. The amount of the blur can be calculated and is not hard to

measure. If the Z-camera was following the limousine, then features of the

background should be blurred. If the Z-camera was focused on the back-

ground, then features of the limousine should be blurred. But in frame 212,

neither is the case. Specific features of the background that should be blur-

red if the camera was following the limo are not blurred, and other features

of the limousine that should be blurred if the camera was stationary are not

blurred. This could only happen if the limo and the scenery were stationary.

Of course, if the limo and the scenery were stationary, then the film, which

does not show stationary moments, must be a fake. Yet being stationary is

the only way to account for the lack of blur in the background and on the

limousine, which are otherwise physically impossible features. Physically

impossible features cannot possibly occur, because their occurrence would

violate laws of nature. So the frame has to be a fraud. It cannot possibly

be real, since that would require the violation of natural laws. (Think about

the freezing point of water, the melting point of iron, the time of free fall, or

even what happens when you consume more energy than you expend. In

that case, you increase in mass and, in a constant gravitational field, you

increase in weight. I've been trying to violate that one for years but to no

avail!) While I have not been following this thread, if you are not talking

about the evidence, you are not talking about the real issues. Anyone who

wants to get up to speed on these issues, by the way, should visit my web

site at http://www.assassinationscience.com and scroll down to "THE JFK

INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR" and take a look at John Constella's nice work.

The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.

The anomalies are problematic.

Jim...what continues to amaze me is that so many people are

willing to critique and HAVE AN OPINION ON your book THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX WITHOUT EVER READING IT! Many do not

even have an understanding of the scientific impossibilities which

Costella and others explain...dismissing them because they

CONTRADICT things which already "prove conspiracy". This is

superficial thinking.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing. Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute.

What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet.

They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes that:

George W. Bush’s very public use of the Hook’um Horns sign is really him secretly signaling to fellow members of the Skull and Bones “Death Cult”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2996

Bushs Sr. and Jr.and the ex-head of the Mossad personally sabotaged JFK Jr.’s plane just before it crashed. Bill and Hillary were in on it also.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4974

Bush watched the first plane hit the North Tower of the WTC on a secret CCTV hook up in his limo on 9 ∕11.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=42453

Costella and Fetzer believe that the 6th Floor Museum’s webcam is part of some insidious plot to spy on JFK researchers in Dealy Plaza. Fetzer, Costella and White believe that rain sensors in the plaza are another part of this plot. Costella believes that the CIA sabotaged his shirts, razor and digital camera before a JFK conference (What kind of idiot puts a digital camera with highly important images on its memory card into checked baggage?) and that the teacher who substituted for him was really a CIA agent.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/160

http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/rainsenless.html (the part about the naked man who stole Jack’s car is worth reading too)

[David G. Healy]

'Colby' dronned on and on and ....

Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing.

dgh01: if I recall correctly you stated you have NO experience in composite film photo analysis. Which makes me wonder why you go through your concerted effort in debunking something you haven't a clue about. Now I understand the subject matter is difficult to comprehend, but rest easy, there are books out there for rank amateurs such as yourself to make the sledding a little easier. The jungle air doesn't do you well, perhaps!

Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute.

dgh01: I await your scholary attempts, that's all they'll be, attempts! ROFL, maybe the Tinkster will give you a hand

What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet.

dgh01: "interesting"? Who, praytell say they are dealing with this particular subject to entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as yourself -- YOU gotta be joking! So listen up, pal -- find yourself one, just one film compositing tech/technical director that will debund Costella's presentation, or mine for that matter. Actually I could care less what you or anyone else thinks concerning the Zapruder film alteration - non alteration.

You, like most noise makers around here are too terrified to deal with published data/articles regarding the subject matter... I got a idea, publish a book on the subject, yeah, that's the ticket -- roflmao

They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes that

[...]

dgh01: your sounding so much like Gary Mack, pitiful!

Edited December 13, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

'Colby' dronned on and on and ....

Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing.

dgh01: if I recall correctly you stated you have NO experience in composite film photo analysis. Which makes me wonder why you go through your concerted effort in debunking something you haven't a clue about. Now I understand the subject matter is difficult to comprehend, but rest easy, there are books out there for rank amateurs such as yourself to make the sledding a little easier. The jungle air doesn't do you well, perhaps!

No, I don't have any experience in composite film photo analysis but then again no one else in your cabal does either nor do I have experience forensic photo analysis but neither do you or any of your co-authors. Since I know little if anything about the field, I don't pretend to be an expert.

Costella who couldn't figure out how to photograph his own shadow so that it was diagonal to the film plane and who argued (like Jack White) that it's impossible to have shadows that aren't perfectly parallel when there is only one light source has zero training or previous experience in photo analysis but pretends to be an expert.

White claims to be a forensic photo expert despite having no training in the field. He often makes gross errors in his analysis.

You claim to be an expert but refused reply to Craig when he asked you about your own work. Doing so won't establish one way or the other if such alteration was possible back in '63 but would [if the work is well done] establish your credentials in composite film work. And if you have any actual forensic experience let us know.

Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute.

dgh01: I await your scholary attempts, that's all they'll be, attempts! ROFL, maybe the Tinkster will give you a hand

I never claimed that I had debunked or found fault with any of the arguments made by you and your associates only that others had. One of several sites that does so is Assassinated Science, http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/, my computer which has most of my files and bookmarks if broken (I'm using a notebook) so I can't reference all the pages I found.

Fetzer et. al's work on the subject can hardly be considered scholarly, it wasn't peer reviewed, unlike David Wrone's book which I understand refutes many of the alteration claims.

What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet.

dgh01: "interesting"? Who, praytell say they are dealing with this particular subject to entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as yourself -- YOU gotta be joking! So listen up, pal -- find yourself one, just one film compositing tech/technical director that will debund Costella's presentation, or mine for that matter.

Since you are making a controversial claim excepted by no experts and very few members of the JFK research community it's up to you to back your claims. If there is any truth to your claims the value of finding expert backing wouldn't just be to "entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as" me but to convince all the others who doubt your theories about alteration and perhaps arrive at the truth.

Don't try to switch the burden of proof, it up to you and you friends to back your claims not for doubters to disprove them.

Actually I could care less what you or anyone else thinks concerning the Zapruder film alteration - non alteration.

If you truly didn't care why did you reply? Your feigned arrogance doesn't help your cause.

You, like most noise makers around here are too terrified to deal with published data/articles regarding the subject matter... I got a idea, publish a book on the subject, yeah, that's the ticket -- roflmao

-I already asked you twice to cite a film made around the time of the assassination with comparable alteration, but you refuse to respond. The best you can do is tell me and others to read some articles or a book. Your inability to cite one leads me to believe that there are any. Pat's filmmaker and photographer friends left him with the impression that the know how to pull such an alteration didn't exist back then and that sounds about right to me.

- I'm not terrified of anything, I don't have anything invested one way or the other in the alteration debate and compared to most participants in this forum I'm only marginally interested in the assassination debate

- Your 'write a book" defense is getting old. I don't pretend to be an expert

They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes that

dgh01: your sounding so much like Gary Mack, pitiful!

Interesting you didn't even try to debate that point. Judging people by their track records is quite reasonable.

[Ed O'Hagan]

David Healy wrote "no burden of proof falls here, Ray -- This isn't a courtroom"

David, this forum will do until a courtroom comes along. We try to be reasonable people, and therefore susceptible to sound argument. Most JFK researchers have neever seriosly doubted that the Z-film is authentic, therefore we see no need to question it. If you could create that doubt, however, some of us might be motivated to investigate further, and maybe find evidence of alteration overlooked up to now. But first you must persuade us that there is real, living doubt.

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

Dictionary.com defines the word 'forum' as follows:

-The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

-A public meeting place for open discussion.

-A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

-A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

-A court of law; a tribunal.

If this forum "will do until a courtroom comes along" it would seem that ideally it should function as a medium for open discussion and voicing ideas. Ideation is, therefore, to be encouraged and speculation, hypothesizing, and 'grand intuitive leaps of the intellect ' are no less worthy of consideration than are the so-called hard facts of the case. If we behave as lawyers conducting cross-examinations of witnesses, we are doing little more than attempting to discredit the statements of others in order to prevent their input from upsetting the way that we perceive things should be... upsetting our applecarts would be an appropriate description.

We are nowhere near a courtroom stage, and if all we wish to do is to close our minds to other possibilities, concepts, ideas, etc. we succeed in doing nothing much more than discouraging others from posting/contributing/whatever. If we have to tag a name to where we are in our thinking about the JFK assassination, I would suggest that instead of lawyers, we might more profitably think of ourselves as being homicide detectives who are extremeley short on leads, and the case is getting colder by the minute. And lest we forget... speculation, theorizing, role playing, simulation, and betimes even the assistance of psychics, have all been used in attempting to put the pieces together in a variety of murder investigations.

What I fear is that if the 'prove it to me' attitude persists, the overall high quality of this forum will rapidly deteriorate. It has happened before on other JFK assassination discussion boards, and it would be a real pity if the same thing were to happen here. Nor is this the first time that I have responded to this type of thing. On one occasion on another forum , I wrote as follows:

All of my posts have been framed within the context of what is termed a limited response question. In other words, a simple yes/no answer was all that was needed, meaning 'Yes, I can see it/No I cannot see it'. Each and every single one of the pictures was cropped from other pictures presently posted here on the forum. I looked and I saw what was being missed, and when I enlarged and presented what I was seeing, the responses which were were posted went far beyond the boundaries of objective evaluation and common courtesy.

The basic element in the development of a lynch-mob mentality is one of fear, and it always has to begin with some loud-mouth, who thinks he knows it all, screaming out ,"Let's hang the bastard! He's not one of us. He thinks black is white. He's has no right to be here. Let's get rid of him."

Simply put, all of this reduces to the question of whether or not I am accurately reporting what I have observed. I have deceived no one by posting pictures. How would that be possible? All that one had to do was to look and either see/not see. Why anyone would think they are entitled to make demands to suit their own purpsoes, is beyond comprehension. If they cannot see what I have enlarged for them, why do they think they could do any better by producing their own enlargements of those very same images. But what does come across loudly and clearly, are undeniable projections of intolerance, arrogance, self-deception, and plain down-right ignorance. If that's what the quest for truth and justice is supposed to generate, then it's a very sad state of affair indeed.

Empty vessels do indeed make the most sound. On the forums the local resident loud-mouth consistently 'trashes' anything that he sees as threatening to his own opinions. He goes for the jugular immediately. He's first in and last out. He sets the tone and dedicates the remainder of his time to shaping the content of thread topics entirely to his own preferences. He believes only in himself. He cannot possibly allow anyone even to suggest that he might do well to take a second look at things. And I assure everyone reading this that everything I have posted on this specific forum - and shall be posting in the future- is demanding of people taking both their time and that most necessary second look at things, prior to jumping in with both feet in support of any loud-mouth detractor whose only interest is self-aggrandizment and impressing like-minded fellow travellers. The latter forget that what they write to impress each other, is also being read by a far larger second group of subscribers comprised in a silent majority.

Need I observe, that suppressing any and all positive input in support of a particular post that does not sit well with a loud-mouth's perpspectives, becomes a major goal... and God help anyone who attempts to voice support, and they know it and so they remain silent. Therein, and historically down through the ages, tyranny has prospered while people have sat on their hands and done nothing. Victory and justice are not necessarily aimiable bed-fellows. Nietzche told us that victory belongs to the powerful, not to the just and righteous, and it was Voltaire who reminded us in 'Candide' , that if things are really bad, there is no reason at all to conclude that hoped for improvements will come to pass. To put it bluntly, 'ad hominem' attacks on the individual, speculating on his/her motivation(s), and downright insulting attacks on a person's character and integrity, not alone are despicable in and of themselves, but , if tolerated to the point that they become commonplace in their acceptance, point directly to the ultimate demise of the institutions, organizations, and societies which permit their expression.. .and please, no attempt should be made to justify any of it by an appeal to the rights of individuals granted via constitutional processes and/or amendments thereto. Objective commentary and/or criticism is never to be feared , but when it reduces to the level of character assassination, insinuation, and totally self-serving attacks on a very long list of dedicated CT fellow researchers, it's not too difficult to understand that if one dares to say a single word concerning anything that is going to be regarded as being contrary to the resident Divinity's omniscient perception of the reality of His universe, apocalyptic fire and brimstome will immediately descend from above.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Ed O'Hagan

[Pat Speer]

I have come to the uncomfortable (and largely unpopular) opinion that all this study of photo alteration, x-ray alteration, and z-film alteration has been a HUGE RED HERRING. (No, I'm not accusing anyone of being a disinfo agent...) It's just that the Fox photos have been available to the research community for almost 20 years now, and most everyone has spent so much time trying to prove they are wrong (because they don't show what people want them to show) that little time has been spent on figuring out what they actually reveal. I'd like to think I've reversed that trend.

Dr. Fetzer, if you read this post, you will see that I did not accuse anyone of being a disinfo agent. I believe you and the many who share your views are completely sincere. If you want to argue semantics, I will agree with you that my use of the term "red herring" implied deliberation (which is why I added the line that followed). Your response was nevertheless enlightening. If I understand you correctly, you accused me of judging your books without ever having read them. The thing is, I HAVE read them. While I am skeptical of alteration, I have not decided one way or the other. I wonder, however, whether anyone in the alterationist camp will read my work.

What bothers me is that because so many believe the evidence was altered, very few have spent any real time researching what the evidence shows. I just spent two years of my life doing this, basically full time. It may well turn out to be a foolish waste of time, energy, and money. But my research showed that, with or without alteration, there is compelling evidence for more than one shooter. Since the government and mainstream media etc. all agree that there was NO alteration, I fail to understand why the research community has looked the other way. Why not use the evidence they accept and use that to destroy their case? Why continue stomping our feet on a point that may never be conceded, when we can use SCIENCE to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?

If you wish to stick by what Costella, White, Mantik, or Healy say, rather than continuing your education, then you have more in common with Specter and Belin than I could possibly have imagined. Any researcher who develops a "company line" and then sticks to it is unworthy of being called a "researcher". I fully expect I've made some mistakes and am anxious to learn from them.

I'm not willing to argue with you or anyone else about Z-film alteration. Since I believe the accepted evidence points to a conspiracy, it is just not as important to me as it is to you. Do you, on the other hand, believe the evidence points to a lone-Oswald in the sniper's nest? Do you think it's even worth looking at what the evidence (when taken at face value) reveals? Is my work of two years meaningless in light of your fervent belief the evidence was altered?

Edited December 14, 2005 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

'Colby' dronned on and on and ....

Untrained experts and out right amateurs like Fetzer, White, Costella, Healy and Clark can study the Z-film frames all they want and point out supposed anomalies with out proving a thing.

dgh01: if I recall correctly you stated you have NO experience in composite film photo analysis. Which makes me wonder why you go through your concerted effort in debunking something you haven't a clue about. Now I understand the subject matter is difficult to comprehend, but rest easy, there are books out there for rank amateurs such as yourself to make the sledding a little easier. The jungle air doesn't do you well, perhaps!

No, I don't have any experience in composite film photo analysis but then again no one else in your cabal does either nor do I have experience forensic photo analysis but neither do you or any of your co-authors. Since I know little if anything about the field, I don't pretend to be an expert.

Costella who couldn't figure out how to photograph his own shadow so that it was diagonal to the film plane and who argued (like Jack White) that it's impossible to have shadows that aren't perfectly parallel when there is only one light source has zero training or previous experience in photo analysis but pretends to be an expert.

White claims to be a forensic photo expert despite having no training in the field. He often makes gross errors in his analysis.

You claim to be an expert but refused reply to Craig when he asked you about your own work. Doing so won't establish one way or the other if such alteration was possible back in '63 but would [if the work is well done] establish your credentials in composite film work. And if you have any actual forensic experience let us know.

Most (if not all) of their claims have already been debunked or are very much in dispute.

dgh01: I await your scholary attempts, that's all they'll be, attempts! ROFL, maybe the Tinkster will give you a hand

I never claimed that I had debunked or found fault with any of the arguments made by you and your associates only that others had. One of several sites that does so is Assassinated Science, http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/, my computer which has most of my files and bookmarks if broken (I'm using a notebook) so I can't reference all the pages I found.

Fetzer et. al's work on the subject can hardly be considered scholarly, it wasn't peer reviewed, unlike David Wrone's book which I understand refutes many of the alteration claims.

What would be far more interesting would be if they could find a single recognized forensic photo analyst to support their claims. I imagine they've looked under rocks in the four corners of the globe, but they don't seem to have found one yet.

dgh01: "interesting"? Who, praytell say they are dealing with this particular subject to entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as yourself -- YOU gotta be joking! So listen up, pal -- find yourself one, just one film compositing tech/technical director that will debund Costella's presentation, or mine for that matter.

Since you are making a controversial claim excepted by no experts and very few members of the JFK research community it's up to you to back your claims. If there is any truth to your claims the value of finding expert backing wouldn't just be to "entertain the likes of 'stumps' such as" me but to convince all the others who doubt your theories about alteration and perhaps arrive at the truth.

Don't try to switch the burden of proof, it up to you and you friends to back your claims not for doubters to disprove them.

Actually I could care less what you or anyone else thinks concerning the Zapruder film alteration - non alteration.

If you truly didn't care why did you reply? Your feigned arrogance doesn't help your cause.

You, like most noise makers around here are too terrified to deal with published data/articles regarding the subject matter... I got a idea, publish a book on the subject, yeah, that's the ticket -- roflmao

-I already asked you twice to cite a film made around the time of the assassination with comparable alteration, but you refuse to respond. The best you can do is tell me and others to read some articles or a book. Your inability to cite one leads me to believe that there are any. Pat's filmmaker and photographer friends left him with the impression that the know how to pull such an alteration didn't exist back then and that sounds about right to me.

- I'm not terrified of anything, I don't have anything invested one way or the other in the alteration debate and compared to most participants in this forum I'm only marginally interested in the assassination debate

- Your 'write a book" defense is getting old. I don't pretend to be an expert

They put credit in so many hair brained notions it's hard to take them seriously for example Jack believes that

dgh01: your sounding so much like Gary Mack, pitiful!

Interesting you didn't even try to debate that point. Judging people by their track records is quite reasonable.

ROFL

Why, oh WHY would I debate someone, anyone claiming no knowledge of the subject at hand? That is IF I choose to debate in the first place! I suspect the contributors of HOAX feel the same. Peddle your ignorance elsewhere -- btw, have a nice holiday.

Edited December 14, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, I think your point is good. Unless the film alteration is necessary to prove conspiracy, why waste time and divide the assassination research community trying to prove it? And I also agree with your point if there was film alteration why would the conspirators leave in the head snap that convinced so many there was a conspiracy? If film alteration was necessary to hide something (what?) why would the conspirators not gone all the way and got rid of the 313-314 sequence? I am not sure if Professor Fetzer has ever answered this point but I would be interested in his answer.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz