Is the *ANTI* altered film/photo crowd...

[David G. Healy]

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

[Kathleen Collins]

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

[Jack White]

I have talked to a researcher who has obtained a "review copy" from a media source.

He has not yet read it.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Guest Stephen Turner]

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up.

[Pat Speer]

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up.

I will probably end up buying Bugliosi's book and studying it in detail. As far as the Z-film being altered and Luce being part of some conspiracy etc., I seem to remember that it was Life Magazine, FROM its study of the Z-film, that first called for a new investigation. In November 1966.

Now why would they do that if the film had been altered to hide a conspiracy? Well, maybe because the film shows Kennedy and Connally react seconds apart, and raises great doubt they were hit by the same shot...

[Ron Ecker]

What I still don't get, if the Z film was altered, is what was taken out, and why in the world they left in what is still there - the separate reactions of JFK and Connally, the head snap, the back spatter of a frontal shot. What was more important that had to be removed? DCM firing a pistol (the raised hand is fakery)? Getting two women out of the street? Connally shooting JFK before getting shot himself? (Remember, shooters are always eliminated within the week.)

Wait, I know, the limo stopping! Couldn't have that. Well, if Greer slowed down, or failed to speed up, presumably because he didn't know what to do (fear of ambush ahead, etc.), then it makes just as much sense that he would stop momentarily. So why all the fuss to keep that limo moving, however slowly?

Aside from the technical problems, the question is what was conceivably accomplished by alteration. There is nothing from eyewitness testimony, as far as I can recall, that indicates something happening of vital significance that is not in the Z film.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Not to mention the fact that every other piece of film shot that day, still and motion, would have to be tracked down and similarly altered.

[Charles Drago]

Another possibility:

The Z-film has been manipulated brilliantly and with devastating impact as a generator of what I've termed "cognitive dissonance" within the investigative and so-called critical communities. It is one of the paralyzing darts fired into our collective system on Day One.

I submit that it was created to do just that. And more.

I submit that there is no more effective way of covering up the true story than by providing evidence supporting any number of "true" stories. Thus the Z-film may have been altered in ways both subtle and overt, the former yet to be discerned, the latter designed to be discovered and debated ad infinitum.

I submit that the conspiracy was conceived and produced as a drama, with main and supporting (always more interesting: Ruby as Falstaff? Angel and Leopoldo as Rosencrantz and Guidenstern?) characters, sub plots galore, and dramas-within-dramas. The Z-film falls into the latter category ... or perhaps it's our tale's dream sequence.

(This is why "JFK" was so effective an instrument of counter-propaganda: It is high drama, aimed more at the viscera than at the intellect.)

Can I prove any of this? Only indirectly.

I submit the obvious: that the strategic goal of the cover-up was to prolong the howdunit aspect of official and civilian investigations. This task was daunting, given that a multi-assassin ambush would be obvious to all present as it took place and to all who had access to the best evidence (in the Lifton sense) in its immediate aftermath. The most important tactical means to achieve that goal were the production and timed releases of materials crafted to support both main points of view simultaneously.

The Z-film has created significant rifts in the critical community. The public debate over its authenticity has prompted countless opportunities to heap derision on alterationists -- and, by extension, all advocates of the conspiratorial truth. It has helped keep the focus on seemingly endless, repetitive efforts to resolve the long-answered howdunit question, and in so doing insulated the conspirators from serious threats of retribution that would be the products of a subsequent whodunit focus.

We are engaged in a war for historical truth. The Posners and Bugliosis and McAdams and Rahns are tasked with providing intellectual and academic bona fides for the great lie, and thus insuring that a majority of historians will conclude that pro- and anti-conspiracy forces engage on a level playing field.

I submit that the keys to our ultimate success remain as follows:

For the public at large,

1. We must constantly differentiate between the howdunit and whodunit questions.

2. We must declare the former to have been answered beyond reasonable doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude.

3. We must reverse engineer, if you will, the proof of the howdunit solution to exclude false sponsors and move as close as we can to the necrotic core of this disease.

Charles

Edited April 13, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Guest Mark Valenti]

1. We must constantly differentiate between the howdunit and whodunit questions.

Charles,

I agree with your line of thinking and I believe you've brought an important approach into play. For me, the Zfilm alteration topic has always been a distraction. A long time ago, I came to believe that it simply couldn't be done, given the variables on site. So every time it's brought up, it feels more like an unproductive tangent.

imo, Could there have been a shot from the front? Yes. Could there be conspirators? Yes. But could the Zfilm have been altered (along with dozens of other still and motion films? No way.

Again, it's just my opinion and I'm well aware that many people have brought tremendous experience and effort to bear in investigating that film. But if the effort that went into the Zfilm had been directed toward other areas, who knows what we may know by now?

[John Dolva]

When one speaks of z fim alteration one covers a broad meaning.

For some it is a complete fabrication.

At the other end of the spectrum is the fact of splices and quite likely a few missing and or combined frames to make one frame.

I have never seen what I could say is a complete version.

What one can say with certainty is that all versions available to the general public, ranging from the grossly 'corrected' (altered) Costella version, to the selected set of b/w frames published by the WC in 1964, and all others being copies of the original are 'altered'.

It's the degree of alteration that's the real issue (IMO). As such I think most here agree the content we have is 'real'. But it has through the processes it's gone through had various qualities changed. It does support a conspiracy, whether it's the fact of splicing or the inconsistencies of WC conclusions and what the film shows.

IOW it IS, as available, altered, or rather, DIFFERENT TO SOME DEGREE, from the complete original. But it's not a fabrication. So the division between the 'alterationist' and the 'anti' is not really there. (IMO).

You people of the USA own it. Why not demand it be put into the public domain?

Edited April 13, 2007 by John Dolva

[Myra Bronstein]

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up.

I will probably end up buying Bugliosi's book and studying it in detail. As far as the Z-film being altered and Luce being part of some conspiracy etc., I seem to remember that it was Life Magazine, FROM its study of the Z-film, that first called for a new investigation. In November 1966.

Now why would they do that if the film had been altered to hide a conspiracy? Well, maybe because the film shows Kennedy and Connally react seconds apart, and raises great doubt they were hit by the same shot...

That's interesting Pat; I've never heard that Life took that stance.

If you have sources that you can share so that we can look into it ourselves it'll be even more interesting.

Thanks.

[Myra Bronstein]

So for the alteration nay-sayers, back to my original questions about the circumstances of Time/Life's possession of the Z-film.

Do you find it at all odd that a major news organization--Time/Life--would purchase a film showing the assassination of the President of the United States, and do nothing with it for years other than print a few stills?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

So for the alteration nay-sayers, back to my original questions about the circumstances of Time/Life's possession of the Z-film.

Do you find it at all odd that a major news organization--Time/Life--would purchase a film showing the assassination of the President of the United States, and do nothing with it for years other than print a few stills?

For one thing, having the film in their possession enhanced the status of the owners and editors in Washington. From a social caste point of view, snagging the Zfilm was the ultimate "get" for a news outlet. It turned the Saturday Evening Post, Newsweek and Look into also-rans for years.

Also consider how media outlets behave when they are in possession of something that turns out to be bogus. For example, Germany's Stern magazine couldn't wait to serialize the fake Hitler Diaries. imo, when people have something truly valuable they keep it close to the vest and release tidbits.

Once they release it fully to the public, it's not theirs any more, their cachet evaporates. In the media and in politics, status is everything.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Mark Valenti

[David G. Healy]

1. We must constantly differentiate between the howdunit and whodunit questions.

Charles,

I agree with your line of thinking and I believe you've brought an important approach into play. For me, the Zfilm alteration topic has always been a distraction. A long time ago, I came to believe that it simply couldn't be done, given the variables on site. So every time it's brought up, it feels more like an unproductive tangent.

imo, Could there have been a shot from the front? Yes. Could there be conspirators? Yes. But could the Zfilm have been altered (along with dozens of other still and motion films? No way.

Again, it's just my opinion and I'm well aware that many people have brought tremendous experience and effort to bear in investigating that film. But if the effort that went into the Zfilm had been directed toward other areas, who knows what we may know by now?

Well that's cute, blame lack of knowledge in the case on the film alteration crowd? Weak, sounds like more preservation of Dealey Plaza historical film-photo record "status quo" to me..... or ducking the issue at very least, so what else is new!

Consider this, a 2nd shooter from the rear! Knowledge of THAT, would of left little or NO doubt re conspiracy in the assassination of JFK - NONE! Two shooters, proof of conspiracy. All without necessary support/aid of a single Nov 22nd 1963 Dealey Plaza film OR photo. EVERY single DP film-photo utilized as JFK assassination related evidence from Nov 23rd on, was used to support a single assassin from the rear scenario, eh? Could the WCR make a case for the single, unstable, mediocore shooter, lone nut assassin without the DP film-photo's? Impossible! The conspiracy side of the question CAN make a case for Conspiracy without any DP film-photo evidence...

When you eliminate (what many knowledgable think) the CT impossible (3 shot-1 shooter from the rear) you're left with the CT probable (3 shot-2 shooter from the rear), no film/photo record necessary. Simplicity!

Let's confuse this scenario a bit; 1 shooter from the rear (TSBD) - 1 shooter from the front (Knoll), that calls in every DP film/photo, hence every piece of DP assassination related evidence (including clothing, x-rays) called to question, verification and authenticity

LHO could not see arraignment, let alone, trial. EVERY knowledgable CTer I've EVER spoken with knows that -- Makes little or no difference whether the anti/alteration film-photo crowds EVER find agreement... Best case scenario for the altered film-photo crowd = coverup, cover up for WHAT? Far from proving conspiracy.

Of course the above is speculation on my part - better than blaming one side or other... right Bill?