Zapruder film "fakery" and the ED Forum Kooks!

[Lance Payette]

Given the widespread belief in Zapruder film fakery, it is not “self-evident” that it is nonsense.

There is a poster on the EF that pushes this using pages of mathematical calculations purporting to show the film was altered. I think he and perhaps one other person understand what he is trying to say. Most people stop asking questions about it. But if it has math, it MUST be right.

I think it is self-evident nonsense. If one dives immediately into the bewildering "evidence of alteration," which is what they want you to do because then you are playing on their turf, it can start to sound halfway plausible. If one steps back and asks, "Wait a minute, in what meta-narrative of the JFKA does this make any sense? Explain to me why they needed to do this and why they would have done it the way you say they did." - well, then it all falls apart. It's very much like - as I know from considerable experience - debating with a Flat Earther or Young Earther. As long as you stay on their turf, their "evidence" is sorta-kinda persuasive. When you step back and say "wait a minute, bub," it's complete nonsense. I had always assumed the whole Flat Earth thing was tongue-in-cheek, wink wink nudge nudge, folks just enjoying being different and having fun. Noooo, not at all. 84% of Americans believe the earth is spherical, while the rest either believe it is flat or have their doubts. Does this mean the Flat Earth is not self-evident nonsense? It is not self-evident nonsense only to the 16% whose cognitive faculties are not tracking in the channels of normality, at least on this issue and probably many others.

(Apropos of the current Ed Forum Follies, I participated on an active forum called White Horse Theology that went completely poof overnight - no warning, no explanation, just poof. Before it went poof, I was astounded at the number of participants who had intelligent things to say about philosophy and theology but who were also Flat Earthers and Fake Moon Landing-ers. They became positively irate if you dared to suggest these beliefs were just a bit irrational. And, of course, they would inevitably point to the not-insignificant number of people who believe these things.)

I sometimes sound like a John Orr groupie, which I'm not, but there is a theory that hangs together. He accounts for Oswald, he accounts for what occurred and why, he accounts for the physical evidence. It's internally consistent, even if one doesn't find it persuasive. You have to confront his evidence and arguments. You can't just say THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

[Lance Payette]

Mr. Epistemology has now hit his morning golf balls and will make one more attempt at clarification ...

On another thread, Greg Doudna took me to task for ridiculing his elaborate Walker scenario. I admit, it makes no sense to me if Walker's only purpose was to stage an assassination attempt to enhance his reputation. But Greg's scenario is like John Orr's: it's internally consistent and accounts for the entire event. You can take it or leave it and even say "that makes no sense" when what you really mean is "that makes no sense to me." You can't say THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, because it does hang together with internal consistency and logic.

One trap we shouldn't fall into is thinking that whatever we believe (e.g., the LN narrative) is the "default rational" position and any other position is either ipso facto irrational or so "extraordinary" that it requires "extraordinary" evidence. Atheists do this all the time on religion forums, and I think we see it here from some LN zealots. Greg's Walker theory is not irrational and is "extraordinary" (to me) only in the sense that it is wildly different from the conventional explanation and seems fantastically, unnecessarily elaborate. But it just requires evidence, not extraordinary evidence, and you can take it or leave it. I wasn't clear about that on the other thread, more or less suggesting you were insane if you believed it.

Unlike Greg's Walker scenario, which as I said accounts for the entire event, the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. If the issue were simply "Was the Z film altered?" then Kevin's point that the silliness is not self-evident would be true. There is at least a body of supposed evidence and expert opinion that might cause an entirely rational person to say, in a vacuum, "By God, I think it was altered."

But the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. It is part and parcel of some theory as to what took place with the JFKA. It has to make sense within that context. You have to be able to articulate an internally consistent and reasonably logical theory of the JFKA in which the need to alter the Z film and the supposed alteration of it MAKES SENSE. Your theory doesn't have to convince me, but it has to MAKE SENSE. In philosophical terms, it has to be "epistemologically justified" even it happens to be 100% untrue. I can't think of any such theory and haven't heard one. In fact, to me it seems ridiculous. But since hope springs eternal, I did issue my challenge.

This is why CTers play the endless game of "What about THIS?" and "What about THAT?" and "What about THAT over there?" They want every issue to be examined in a vacuum. "Z film alteration = conspiracy." If they can keep the focus on the supposed Z film alteration as though it were a stand-alone issue, they can sound sorta-kinda persuasive. When you say, "Super! So what was the conspiracy and how does the necessity to alter the Z film fit into it? How would that have worked, from the time they were planning the JFKA and considering the possibility of cameras in Dealey Plaza to Abe doing his filming to the events immediately thereafter to the alteration itself? How would it have worked and what sense would it have made?" - well, then, they have no answer and shift the focus to "And what about THAT over there?"

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mr. Epistemology has now hit his morning golf balls and will make one more attempt at clarification ...

On another thread, Greg Doudna took me to task for ridiculing his elaborate Walker scenario. I admit, it makes no sense to me if Walker's only purpose was to stage an assassination attempt to enhance his reputation. But Greg's scenario is like John Orr's: it's internally consistent and accounts for the entire event. You can take it or leave it and even say "that makes no sense" when what you really mean is "that makes no sense to me." You can't say THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, because it does hang together with internal consistency and logic.

One trap we shouldn't fall into is thinking that whatever we believe (e.g., the LN narrative) is the "default rational" position and any other position is either ipso facto irrational or so "extraordinary" that it requires "extraordinary" evidence. Atheists do this all the time on religion forums, and I think we see it here from some LN zealots. Greg's Walker theory is not irrational and is "extraordinary" (to me) only in the sense that it is wildly different from the conventional explanation and seems fantastically, unnecessarily elaborate. But it just requires evidence, not extraordinary evidence, and you can take it or leave it. I wasn't clear about that on the other thread, more or less suggesting you were insane if you believed it.

Unlike Greg's Walker scenario, which as I said accounts for the entire event, the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. If the issue were simply "Was the Z film altered?" then Kevin's point that the silliness is not self-evident would be true. There is at least a body of supposed evidence and expert opinion that might cause an entirely rational person to say, in a vacuum, "By God, I think it was altered."

But the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. It is part and parcel of some theory as to what took place with the JFKA. It has to make sense within that context. You have to be able to articulate an internally consistent and reasonably logical theory of the JFKA in which the need to alter the Z film and the supposed alteration of it MAKES SENSE. Your theory doesn't have to convince me, but it has to MAKE SENSE. In philosophical terms, it has to be "epistemologically justified" even it happens to be 100% untrue. I can't think of any such theory and haven't heard one. In fact, to me it seems ridiculous. But since hope springs eternal, I did issue my challenge.

This is why CTers play the endless game of "What about THIS?" and "What about THAT?" and "What about THAT over there?" They want every issue to be examined in a vacuum. "Z film alteration = conspiracy." If they can keep the focus on the supposed Z film alteration as though it were a stand-alone issue, they can sound sorta-kinda persuasive. When you say, "Super! So what was the conspiracy and how does the necessity to alter the Z film fit into it? How would that have worked, from the time they were planning the JFKA and considering the possibility of cameras in Dealey Plaza to Abe doing his filming to the events immediately thereafter to the alteration itself? How would it have worked and what sense would it have made?" - well, then, they have no answer and shift the focus to "And what about THAT over there?"

Gee, I was expecting to loudly complain that Mytton is mostly repeating stuff he has already posted many times before. But, I guess you only care when WC skeptics revisit issues and repeat some of their material. You don't seem to mind at all when WC believers do it. Duly noted.

[Kevin Balch]

Mr. Epistemology has now hit his morning golf balls and will make one more attempt at clarification ...

On another thread, Greg Doudna took me to task for ridiculing his elaborate Walker scenario. I admit, it makes no sense to me if Walker's only purpose was to stage an assassination attempt to enhance his reputation. But Greg's scenario is like John Orr's: it's internally consistent and accounts for the entire event. You can take it or leave it and even say "that makes no sense" when what you really mean is "that makes no sense to me." You can't say THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, because it does hang together with internal consistency and logic.

One trap we shouldn't fall into is thinking that whatever we believe (e.g., the LN narrative) is the "default rational" position and any other position is either ipso facto irrational or so "extraordinary" that it requires "extraordinary" evidence. Atheists do this all the time on religion forums, and I think we see it here from some LN zealots. Greg's Walker theory is not irrational and is "extraordinary" (to me) only in the sense that it is wildly different from the conventional explanation and seems fantastically, unnecessarily elaborate. But it just requires evidence, not extraordinary evidence, and you can take it or leave it. I wasn't clear about that on the other thread, more or less suggesting you were insane if you believed it.

Unlike Greg's Walker scenario, which as I said accounts for the entire event, the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. If the issue were simply "Was the Z film altered?" then Kevin's point that the silliness is not self-evident would be true. There is at least a body of supposed evidence and expert opinion that might cause an entirely rational person to say, in a vacuum, "By God, I think it was altered."

But the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. It is part and parcel of some theory as to what took place with the JFKA. It has to make sense within that context. You have to be able to articulate an internally consistent and reasonably logical theory of the JFKA in which the need to alter the Z film and the supposed alteration of it MAKES SENSE. Your theory doesn't have to convince me, but it has to MAKE SENSE. In philosophical terms, it has to be "epistemologically justified" even it happens to be 100% untrue. I can't think of any such theory and haven't heard one. In fact, to me it seems ridiculous. But since hope springs eternal, I did issue my challenge.

This is why CTers play the endless game of "What about THIS?" and "What about THAT?" and "What about THAT over there?" They want every issue to be examined in a vacuum. "Z film alteration = conspiracy." If they can keep the focus on the supposed Z film alteration as though it were a stand-alone issue, they can sound sorta-kinda persuasive. When you say, "Super! So what was the conspiracy and how does the necessity to alter the Z film fit into it? How would that have worked, from the time they were planning the JFKA and considering the possibility of cameras in Dealey Plaza to Abe doing his filming to the events immediately thereafter to the alteration itself? How would it have worked and what sense would it have made?" - well, then, they have no answer and shift the focus to "And what about THAT over there?"

I don’t believe the Z-film was altered. I think Life bought all rights to the film on November 25, 1963 because they damaged the original while preparing the November 29 issue and knew they would face a lawsuit from Zapruder, tgat Zapruder would certainly win and that a jury would award Zapruder anything he wanted. It was a business decision.

Further, the Bridgehead facility in Rochester NY (not Hawkeyeworks which was the nickname of Kodak’s corporate HQ in Rochester which contained the secured Bridgehead operation) did not work with anything smaller than 70 mm film, had no animation artists on staff and according to a declassified history which had a detailed listing of the equipment they used, did not have an optical printer alterationists say was used to modify the film.

The reasons I’ve heard given for film alteration are to hide evidence of a shot from the front and to hide a limo stop.

I don’t believe there were any shots from the front and a limo stop is impossible from a physics standpoint as the secret service car would have rear ended the limo or at least hit Clint Hill. Certainly SOMEBODY in either car would have noticed a limo stop and remarked about it. It certainly slowed down to about 7 mph but did not stop.

[Tommy Shanks]

Steve's post somewhat relates to another "epistemological" point I was going to make. When you confront MTG and others like him with the stark reality that what they say MAKES NO SENSE, they do not - EVER - attempt to explain how it does make sense, even in their quirky view of the JFKA. They adopt one or both of two tactics:

1. You really know nothing about the JFKA. You may have been studying it for 50 years and have read essentially everything ever written, but you lack their deep knowledge. You are an amateur who has no business even participating in discussions about the JFKA, let alone trying to engage at the level of deep and arcane knowledge at which these folks operate. If only poor unworthy you knew what they know, you'd see what they see.

2. You're just a crank who thinks all CTers are crazy. Since many CTers are obviously not crazy, and many CT arguments are quite rational, this allows folks like MTG to adopt the high ground (I'm just like Larry Hancock!) and imply that it is in fact you who are crazy. No, sorry, there is a lunatic fringe of the CT community that is distinct and recognizable because what they say MAKES NO SENSE and THEY DON'T EVEN CARE that it makes no sense.

Pay attention, and you will see how many responses from MTG and his ilk fall into one or both of these categories.

Perfectly expressed, Lance. Maybe we can pass the hat around and get Michael T. Griffith a t-shirt that says "All the Evidence Is Fake!"