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

[Guest Mark Valenti]

David,

The Zfilm alteration theory is, to me, an unproductive tangent, plain and simple. I would bet money it will never lead to any kind of solution or even kinda sorta helpful data.

I agree that a second shooter from the rear is plausible and could fit within the known details. And despite there being no good place for a shooter to hide from the front, imo, a shot from the front remains viable as long as certain issues remain unresolved. I don't personally think there was a shot from the front but considering the mountain of theories that places one there, I believe that logic and fairness requires it to remain on the table - if off to the side a little.

[Paul Rigby]

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.

Why did Luce's empire briefly, tactically, embrace conspiracism in late 1966? The answer is China.

The "strike north" group - the echo of Japanese interwar militarism is intentional - within the Pentagon/CIA sought to use Vietnam to embroil Peking. The opposition - Luce, among others - sought to apply pressure to prevent the spread of the war.

Perhaps the key figure in deciphering this elite riddle is Harrison Salisbury. No sooner is he granted a visa to Hanoi than the incipient establishment calls for a reinvestigation of Dallas subside. What we see is nothing less than an attempt, mediated via the doctored film, to conscript public opinion behind the Luce/Salisbury position by adding a frontal shot to the establishment's rear shot. But the frontal shot had to be ultimately harmless to the establishment's position - hence the grassy knoll.

Paul

[David G. Healy]

'Mark Valenti' wrote:

David,

The Zfilm alteration theory is, to me, an unproductive tangent, plain and simple. I would bet money it will never lead to any kind of solution or even kinda sorta helpful data.

dgh: I say productive, especially from a LHO-SBT single shooter instance -- keep attention on DP film-photos controversy why go elsewhere to many scenarios out there pointing towards conspiracy...? Keep it simple...

I agree that a second shooter from the rear is plausible and could fit within the known details. And despite there being no good place for a shooter to hide from the front, imo, a shot from the front remains viable as long as certain issues remain unresolved.

dgh: shot from the front --"...as long as certain issues remain unsolved." therein lays, SBT longevity

I don't personally think there was a shot from the front but considering the mountain of theories that places one there, I believe that logic and fairness requires it to remain on the table - if off to the side a little.

dgh: but course a shot from the knoll is NOT needed. However, a shot from the knoll - even straight up in the air, would serve purpose... IF, there was conspiracy, a coup would not employ a questionable (at best& verifiable) shooter in taking down the most powerful man (in American eyes) on earth. Way, way, WAY too much left to chance...

The SBT has lasted a few score years, it had a good run. There is much pointing towards conspiracy, that includes the entire DP photo record, which at its very best-worst is questionable, to me that makes for a wash, if you eliminate the photorecord, what does that leave?

[Charles Drago]

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?

Mark,

Permit me to suggest an alternative phrasing for your question: "Could the Z-film have been altered without subsequent detection of the alteration?"

The answer: NO!

And the alterationists (sounds like the title of a Caleb Carr novel) knew it, altered it anyway, and facilitated our detection of their fraud.

Their goal, at least in terms of my hypothesis, was to conceal the truth by allowing us to discern their efforts to do so, and as a consequence mire ourselves in decades of argument over a long-settled issue: conspiracy as historical truth.

Charles

[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?

Mark,

Permit me to suggest an alternative phrasing for your question: "Could the Z-film have been altered without subsequent detection of the alteration?"

The answer: NO!

And the alterationists (sounds like the title of a Caleb Carr novel) knew it, altered it anyway, and facilitated our detection of their fraud.

Their goal, at least in terms of my hypothesis, was to conceal the truth by allowing us to discern their efforts to do so, and as a consequence mire ourselves in decades of argument over a long-settled issue: conspiracy as historical truth.

Charles

Not necessary -- consider who/what a alleged 'altered' Zapruder film need fool -- the Warren Commission, staff, and certain controlled media, that's it! Unless of course the Zapruder film was to have a mass airing during the commissions life? If the Zapruder film (as we see it today) was circulated to DP eye and ear witnesses during the life of the Warren Commission, what could we expect their response to the SBT be? The Zapruder film as we see it TODAY?

Any form, bastardized or otherwise of the Zapruder film would passed muster with the WC. The need to keep LHO in the 6th floor window is obvious, especially if one simply relies on Hoover statements and certain presidential staff personnel concerning *a* Lone Assassin....

Edited April 13, 2007 by David G. Healy

[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?

No.

...

Not one to over discuss things eh Kathy?

You take the astonishing position that there's nothing at all odd about a major new organization purchasing then hiding one of the most significant pieces of evidence in one of the biggest crimes ever committed, and feel no need to explain your thought process.

Well your succinctness sure keeps the thread short. There is that upside.

...

I can't see for the life of me what purpose it serves,were it altered.

...

We would have to know all the details of the murder to understand the purpose of altering evidence wouldn't we?

Given that we (or at least I, don't want to speak for you) don't know all the details I can only speculate about the purpose of altering major evidence like the Z-film. Among the possibilities:

-Hiding the possibility that the presidential limo came to a stop.

-Hiding the possibility that one of SS agents in the front seat of the presidential limo did something incriminating.

(Even more incriminating than sitting around with their thumbs up their asses while the president is murdered.)

-Hiding indisputable evidence of a shot from the front.

-Hiding indisputable evidence of more than three shots fired.

There are infinite possibilities, and infinite reasons for altering footage of a successful plot to murder a US president.

...

I believe the Backyard Photos are doctored, but that has a purpose---to make Oswald very much look like the assassin.

...

Gee, altering the Z-film to hide shots hitting multiple parts of the limo and occupants from multiple angles just might serve the exact same purpose--"to make Oswald very much look like the assassin"--eh?

...

Perhaps, Myra, maybe we should turn all the lights off in Dealey Plaza, and see what is left---

only sounds.

Wow that is so poetic.

What does it mean?

Edited langauge.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[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?

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.

"Status." Ok, asked and answered. News organizations squirrel away crime evidence for status rather than newsworthiness.

This is a most informative thread.

[Evan Burton]

Quick question from a person who knows little - if anything - about the JFK debate:

Does any claimed alteration of the film do anything to disprove the suggestion of more than one shooter?

For instance, if the film were proven to be altered, does this strengthen the Warren Commission 'lone assassin' assertion? Or does any alteration - or lack thereof - merely mean that certain theories regarding more than one assassin are weakened or strengthened?

[Pat Speer]

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.

"Status." Ok, asked and answered. News organizations squirrel away crime evidence for status rather than newsworthiness.

This is a most informative thread.

Myra, this may seem hard to believe, but it's clear to me that Life Magazine bought the Z-Film for two reasons, 1) to keep the gruesome film from becoming a public spectacle 2) to make a boatload of cash. Life was big news in the 60s, and having the Z film meant millions of sales. Just as importantly, having the film prevented their competitors from getting millions of sales. I'd bet you the purchase paid for itself within the first year.

As far as alteration, I don't think there was any. There is reason to suspect that the FBI and Warren Commission deliberately printed the head shot frames in the wrong order, in order to hide that the head went back after the shot. As Life executive C.D. Jackson was close to Warren Commissioner John McCloy, there's also a possibility Life colluded with the WC to keep certain frames from the public. Since Jackson died in 64, however, it's possible his promises died with him...which might explain the magazine's switcheroo in 66.

[Jack White]

Quick question from a person who knows little - if anything - about the JFK debate:

Does any claimed alteration of the film do anything to disprove the suggestion of more than one shooter?

For instance, if the film were proven to be altered, does this strengthen the Warren Commission 'lone assassin' assertion? Or does any alteration - or lack thereof - merely mean that certain theories regarding more than one assassin are weakened or strengthened?

Alteration or fabrication of the Z film proves GOVERNMENTAL PARTICIPATION IN THE ASSASSINATION.

The motive clearly was to support the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT VERSION of events.

Jack

[Charles Black]

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

Charles Drago

I feel you are absolutely right on. I have been criticized constantly for continuing to repeat this Z film, is why this "investigation" has not been concluded.

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

This may mean nothing, but last week I went to my local Barnes & Noble and "reserved" a copy. I was told they expect to receive it near the end of May.

I hope they meant "this year" !

Charlie Black

[Kathleen Collins]

[

Quick question from a person who knows little - if anything - about the JFK debate:

Does any claimed alteration of the film do anything to disprove the suggestion of more than one shooter?

For instance, if the film were proven to be altered, does this strengthen the Warren Commission 'lone assassin' assertion? Or does any alteration - or lack thereof - merely mean that certain theories regarding more than one assassin are weakened or strengthened?

Maybe it's my eyes or my perception, but the Zapruder Film, as we know it, proves to me that he was hit from the front-right. He receives his first bullet in his throat. When he comes out from the later-inserted sign, his arms are up and he's grasping at his tie knot. Obvious to me: he was shot from the front. Unless he recieved a paralyzing dart from Umbrella Man. But would a dart from the Umbrella Man hit him in the front or the side? This depends on where Umbrella Man was. To my eyes, he receives the last shot, the fatal one, from the right-front, the Grassy Knoll.

As such, with its splices and all, why did they ever release this film? It seems they're telling us one thing, but we're seeing something else. Am I the only one who sees this?

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

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

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

Wow. What gall. I guess they're trying to tell the "truth" finally so President Kennedy can rest in his grave. And the rest of us, on forums like this, are just troublemakers.

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

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.

That's another thing about this film. Greer turned to see what was happening behind him and jammed on the brakes, only to see Kennedy's head explode, then on with the accelerator to Parkland. Supposedly, removing the limo stop serves to hide Secret Service complicity. Are they kidding? Kennedy's agent in Love Field started to jog next to the limo and was called back by a secret service man who was evidently the supervisor. Now, they had to know a camera was trained on the limo from somewhere in Love Field. The SS man jogging, stops and throws up his hands like "It's your call." I feel his actions were for the benefit of whatever camera was filming them. And that there's SS complicity throughout that film.

Kathy