I came across Chris Davidson and Keven Hofeling's allegations at the Ed Forum that the Zapruder film that we know, isn't the original. Chris Davidson uses "maths" to allege that the Limo stopped, while Hofeling has accumulated a vast number of buzzwords which he uses to sound somewhat knowledgeable but as they say in the classics, garbage in garbage out.
You guys wantta continually talk about the Current Zapruder Film showing a massive blow-out wound in JFK's (R) temple region. What you do Not mention is the FBI Garage Photos showing absolutely NO Blood/Brain matter on the (R) side/shot gun side of the backseat of the JFK Limo. Based on the tidal wave of Blood/Brain Matter we see being expelled to the (R) on the Current Zapruder Film, the (R) side of the backseat area should have been plastered with gore in a scene reminiscent of one of "Roger Corman's" classic flicks.
I'll save for another time the bucket on the ground next to the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital, along with the SS Flunkies/Wash-N-Wax Detail being all over the JFK Limo interior as the C130 flew it back to DC BEFORE the Garage Photos were taken.
In order for any of the splatter to end up on the right side of the back seat, it would have had to go almost straight down from the back of the head wound. It is not surprising at all that did not happen. There was a small amount of discharge to the year which landed on the trunk according to Clint Hill and Jackie was reaching for a piece of his head that landed on the trunk. Most of the splatter went upward and forward as can be seen in Z313. JBC said the middle seat section was showered with bits of brain which JBC described as being the size of his thumb.
On the Current Z Film, we see a gusher of blood/brain matter BLOWING OUT of JFK's (R) temple area. I believe you need to view a better definition copy of the Current Zapruder Film. There's plenty of crappola coming out of the (R) temple area. "MOST of the splatter went upward and forward......"? Most = 51%. That leaves plenty of blood/brain matter to be expelled to the (R) side/gunshot side of the JFK Limo. That mess would have landed inside the (R) side of the backseat and/or onto Elm St. If you look at hi def images showing the Newman family laying on the ground, you can see RED Splotches of blood/brain matter on the grass around them.
On the Current Z Film, we see a gusher of blood/brain matter BLOWING OUT of JFK's (R) temple area. I believe you need to view a better definition copy of the Current Zapruder Film. There's plenty of crappola coming out of the (R) temple area. "MOST of the splatter went upward and forward......"? Most = 51%. That leaves plenty of blood/brain matter to be expelled to the (R) side/gunshot side of the JFK Limo. That mess would have landed inside the (R) side of the backseat and/or onto Elm St. If you look at hi def images showing the Newman family laying on the ground, you can see RED Splotches of blood/brain matter on the grass around them.
You neglect the fact that before the headshot struck, JFK was leaning hard to his left. The would turn his temple upward facilitating ejection of blood and brain upward and forward. It also would make it less likely for splatter to go down and to the right.
I haven't seen the clip of the Newman's laying on the ground recently. The next time I do, I will check to see if there are signs of blood splatter. I don't recall either of the Newman's saying they were splattered by drops of blood. I would think that is something they would have mentioned when interviewed on TV a short time later. I also think I would have remembered it had they mentioned it.
Do the research and THEN we can discuss it. What you might have missed, not seen, not have heard, is unimportant to the current discussion we are having. Had you previously noticed that the Car was NOT on the Wiegman Film? Had you heard anyone even mention it? There is a lot of JFK Assassination virgin ground to research and discuss. But first, You need to open your mind.
I wouldn't call the things you think are important that nobody else does "virgin ground". I also don't know what that has to do with the blood and brain splatter and the Newmans.
Hello? McFly?........... (1) So name somebody else that pointed out the Car is Not on the Wiegman Film? (2) Name somebody else that Proved the Huge Gates were "wide open". (3) Name somebody else that challenged the time stamping of Walthers/Harkness/Phony Cop being on the Darnell Film. (4) Name somebody else that pointed out blood/brain matter was on the grass around the Newman Family. ALL of this is "virgin ground". And the car is a continuing investigation. I hope to have more "getaway" car information within the next 2-4 weeks. .............................. STAY TUNED .............................. McFly!
Name somebody else who cares.
Hi John.. just catching up on this and wow! Do you ever post on that forum?
Hey John - Have you viewed the higher def Current Z Film(s) posted on You Tube? I have 1 that I prefer, and it clearly shows JFK being HIT with such force that he is PROPELLED BACKWARD into the backrest. JFK is hit with such force the he literally bounces off of the backrest and then falls to the (L) like a tree that has just been cut down.
We can argue the bona fides of the Current Z Film, but even hi def copies of that clearly display the impact of a Front (R) shot. The lower def Z Film copies are like watching anything on an old SD Broadcast/TV. Just think back to the stark difference between broadcast SD vs HD. This is why Bart Kamp continues gaining attention. He is posting better definition images. The Current Z Film images being posted on this Forum are outdated. Even the Z Film images that you are posting has all kinds of crappola consistently flying through it. That's a dead giveaway that this "material" dates way back.
Did you happen to notice where JFK hit the seat? It was on the far right side. That shoots down the claim he went "back and to the left". He was already leaning to his left when the bullet struck his head. From that left leaning position, he went straight back.
While impossible to prove, the most likely explanation for JFK's rearward movement is a neuro-muscular reaction to the massive brain trauma. Also a contributing to the rearward movement could be the so called jet effect caused by the force full ejection of matter from the front of the head propelling him backward. I don't think that force would be enough to cause the backward movement by itself, but it probably was a contributing factor.
What we can rule out is the force of the bullet driving JFK backward. Bullets are two small and don't have that much throw weight. They only transfer a small amount of momentum to the body being struck. I have shot empty aluminum cans with a .44 Magnum and it usually doesn't even knock the cans down. That's because the cans offer almost no resistance to the bullet. There's almost no momentum transfer. Bullets throwing human bodies around like rag dolls is a Hollywood invention done for visual impact. The first time that was done was in the movie Shane. The gunfighter Wilson (Jack Palance)* gunned down a sodbuster whom he had goaded into drawing on him. To create the effect, a rope was tied around the sodbusters waist and as Wilson fired the gun, the sodbuster was yanked backward in an unrealistic manner. Since then, that kind of reaction has become a Hollywood staple in gunfights.
*In the movie Shane, Jack Palance was billed as Walter Jack Palance, a name he kept for several years until dropping the Walter. He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in Shane. He didn't win for Shane but four decades later he was nominated for the same award for City Slickers and won the Oscar for that performance.
You have No Idea what I am looking at.On that we can agree.
I wouldn't call the 6.5mm Carcano routine. It wasn't a commonly used round, but there was nothing exceptional about it. It falls right between the WWII standard .30-06 (7.62mm) round and the current NATO round of 5.56mm now in use.
And then you assume that JFK was struck with a routine bullet. "No soup for you"!
I am extremely familiar with "Shane". "Torrey" and "Wilson" too. Howard Hughes knew what he was doing when he tried to buy that flick.
Very telling that you would tie a Hollywood Movie into a discussion of the Current Z Film.
On that we can agree.I wouldn't call the 6.5mm Carcano routine. It wasn't a commonly used round, but there was nothing exceptional about it. It falls right between the WWII standard .30-06 (7.62mm) round and the current NATO round of 5.56mm now in use.
Simply pointing out that people think shooting victims get thrown forcefully by a gunshot like they see in the movies.
Both bullets recovered were 6.5mm Carcano bullets. So were the only three recovered shells. There is no evidence of any other bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day.
Nice attempted dodge. There is a "Lost Bullet".
There was a clear consensus of the witnesses that 3 shots were fired. With 3 recovered shells and 2 recovered bullets, all positively traced to Oswald's rifle. Does it take a genius to figure out what the caliber of that lost bullet was and which rifle fired it?
And you also forgot the HSCA "4th shot". This is what happens when you present only hand picked portions of a story. That story is quickly dismantled piece-by-piece.
Hey John - Have you viewed the higher def Current Z Film(s) posted on You Tube? I have 1 that I prefer, and it clearly shows JFK being HIT with such force that he is PROPELLED BACKWARD into the backrest. JFK is hit with such force the he literally bounces off of the backrest and then falls to the (L) like a tree that has just been cut down.
We can argue the bona fides of the Current Z Film, but even hi def copies of that clearly display the impact of a Front (R) shot. The lower def Z Film copies are like watching anything on an old SD Broadcast/TV. Just think back to the stark difference between broadcast SD vs HD. This is why Bart Kamp continues gaining attention. He is posting better definition images. The Current Z Film images being posted on this Forum are outdated. Even the Z Film images that you are posting has all kinds of crappola consistently flying through it. That's a dead giveaway that this "material" dates way back.
Hey John - Have you viewed the higher def Current Z Film(s) posted on You Tube? I have 1 that I prefer, and it clearly shows JFK being HIT with such force that he is PROPELLED BACKWARD into the backrest. JFK is hit with such force the he literally bounces off of the backrest and then falls to the (L) like a tree that has just been cut down.
The Current Z Film images being posted on this Forum are outdated. Even the Z Film images that you are posting has all kinds of crappola consistently flying through it. That's a dead giveaway that this "material" dates way back.
And Amos Euins said he heard 4 shots. He is a major close up witness who not only heard the shots but was looking AT the shooter AS the shooter fired the rifle.
And Amos said the shooter was sticking the rifle OUT the window and yet Amos saw no scope on the rifle.
But Arnold Rowland from a block away , DID see a scope on the rifle in the hands of some person at the SW 6th floor at 12:15.
Eagle Eye Rowland however completely missed seeing the SE window shooter sticking a rifle out the window while Amos was watching the shooter at 12:30.
So these witness DRIVE me crazy lolz
JohnC is right, you've been watching too much Dirty Harry, real life isn't a Hollywood movie.
All these Soldiers were struck in the head with FMJ bullets and not one soldier is forcefully propelled forward and in fact not even one falls forward, they simply crumple straight down and fall back towards the shooters.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDKYhFbh/men-shot-in-head.gif)
Mythbusters had multiple men firing into a pig carcass and it barely moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NCcHf8x/pignotmove.gif)
So you think the closest images that we have to what's on the actual Zapruder Film is outdated but your digitally enhanced Zapruder Frames which obscures detail and is not much better than being covered with Vaseline is the Gold standard, Interesting!
JohnM
JohnC is right, you've been watching too much Dirty Harry, real life isn't a Hollywood movie.
All these Soldiers were struck in the head with FMJ bullets and not one soldier is forcefully propelled forward and in fact not even one falls forward, they simply crumple straight down and fall back towards the shooters.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDKYhFbh/men-shot-in-head.gif)
Mythbusters had multiple men firing into a pig carcass and it barely moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NCcHf8x/pignotmove.gif)
So you think the closest images that we have to what's on the actual Zapruder Film is outdated but your digitally enhanced Zapruder Frames which obscures detail and is not much better than being covered with Vaseline is the Gold standard, Interesting!
JohnM
Come on now John. We do Not know that ALL of those guys were shot in the head. What I do know is that NOT a single head EXPLODES. Not 1!
What I do know is that NOT a single head EXPLODES. Not 1!
We do Not know that ALL of those guys were shot in the head.
JohnC is right, you've been watching too much Dirty Harry, real life isn't a Hollywood movie.
All these Soldiers were struck in the head with FMJ bullets and not one soldier is forcefully propelled forward and in fact not even one falls forward, they simply crumple straight down and fall back towards the shooters.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDKYhFbh/men-shot-in-head.gif)
Mythbusters had multiple men firing into a pig carcass and it barely moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NCcHf8x/pignotmove.gif)
So you think the closest images that we have to what's on the actual Zapruder Film is outdated but your digitally enhanced Zapruder Frames which obscures detail and is not much better than being covered with Vaseline is the Gold standard, Interesting!
JohnM
BUMP with respect to, "....ALL these soldiers were struck in the head............"
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6Zf6MXV/Panel-IV-of-the-NARA-briefing-board-set.jpg)
As we clearly see in the right most frame in the middle row, JFK is in the far right side of the seat. How did he end up there if he went "back and to the left"?
After looking at the above briefing board, I noticed what at first seemed to be a sprocket hole on the lower left corner of Z314, which could add evidence that the Zapruder film that they had on the 23rd was the unmasked original. So I had a look online for the SS copy and the best I could find was from a video posted by "The JFK Theorist" but frustratingly he wasn't sure where he got it from.
NOTICE: video 87.38 is NOT sourced from the National Archives, but I cannot remember where it originates from. I added it as a replacement because 87.38 is not available online and probably will not be for a while. I cannot and will not confirm that the replacement is the same as 87.38, but I believe it is extremely similar and originates from the Secret Service, presumably the Dallas Secret Service.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MH224K0j/National-archives-dup-zap-87-38-not-yet-available.jpg)
Anyway, I used this copy and overlayed the Z314 from the briefing board to see if the sprocket hole lined up with the respective Z314 and the holes don't line up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrkPZVvr/Panel-IV-of-the-NARA-briefing-board-set-z314-crop-SS-overlay.gif)
But what is interesting is that instead of cropping the original at the limit of the sprocket holes, the briefing board Z314 was cropped on the LHS at the exact limit of the masked off area, on what is most probably a copy of the SS original. Also worth noting is that after reviewing several images of 8mm film that has the sprocket holes masked off by the camera or by post processing, this left edge isn't always consistent in relation to the sprocket holes. And additionally, the briefing board photo wasn't exactly square, so I applied corrective software to square it up with Z314 and TBH it's still fractionally off but insignificant enough as to not affect the above conclusion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqmZt5Hn/2nd-gen-z314.jpg)
JohnM
Orville Nix's film has never been seen again since the FBI took it into their custody ! What did Orville's film show that would have been different than what the Zapruder film shows ?
Absolutely nothing. It matches the Z film precisely.
I came across Chris Davidson and Keven Hofeling's allegations at the Ed Forum that the Zapruder film that we know, isn't the original. Chris Davidson uses "maths" to allege that the Limo stopped, while Hofeling has accumulated a vast number of buzzwords which he uses to sound somewhat knowledgeable but as they say in the classics, garbage in garbage out.
1. Refuting a Limo stop.
I don't think Zapruder critics realize that the changes they suggest were impossible;
For example, say you remove frames then how do you have the people outside moving towards the Limo not be affected by the frame removal and that goes for the Limo passengers, there is no sudden jumps and everyone has constant motion. And then you have the problem of the Limo, it doesn't stop and start on a dime but has to come to a stop and then has to gain speed to go again, so at what two points in the "original" Zapruder film do you snip the film to show the slowing Limo and how do you account for the multiple people elements and the missing yards to account for the slow down, stop and reacceleration?
This may be difficult to grasp but to have an end product that equals the "Current" Zapruder film we need to edit out a stop, so we match the Limo's approach speed of say 8mph and edit that with a departure speed of 8mph but what happens to the footage in between? The Limo has travelled some distance, the people outside didn't become statues and likewise the occupants of the Limo have continued to move.
And considering that Nix captured from the opposite end of Dealey Plaza, the entire sequence where the Limo was supposed to have stopped, makes the limo stop theory dead in the water.
2. Addressing Hofeling's needlessly verbose allegations or in other words, if you can't impress with science and legitimate evidence, then baffle them with BS!
According to Jonathan Cohen, in Hofeling's latest post at the ED Forum, Hofeling used over 10,000 words to attack his critics and repeat much of the garbage which he has posted multiple times before. I have previously created a thread addressing Hofeling's belief that JFK's back of head "patch" at Z317 was painted on to cover a back of head hole but this is only the start of a much larger problem, namely how do you cover up the cloud of expelled matter?
My original thread addressing Hofeling's first wave of Zapruder fakery.
Ever wonder why the hardcore CT's try to create doubt about the Zapruder
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3920.msg154876.html#msg154876
Hofeling has recently added some new pieces of "evidence", some of which are the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
2a. Hofeling lists some witnesses who allegedly corroborate Brugioni's "Multi-Frame, Rearward-Flying Biological Debris", for those who don't know who Brugioni is, he watched the Zapruder film on the day after the assassination. And for a start, Brugioni was the worst witness because after seeing the Zapruder film 50+ years later said of the original film, "it(biological matter) was straight up [gesturing high above his own head]... in the sky..." which is precisely what we see in the current Zapruder film and is totally at odds with rearward-flying anything! Brugioni also says that this biological matter was visible for more than 1 frame but the Zapruder film shows this debris in the air for more than 1 frame, so who knows what he was shown and at what resolution? and let's not forget that Brugioni back in 1963 saw either the much clearer original or at the very least a first generation print?
To support the rearward-flying matter, Hofeling lists along with Brugioni, Zapruder himself and Sitzman who was Zapruder's secretary who stood behind Zapruder and kept him steady.
But unfortunately for Hofeling, Sitzman and Zapruder's evidence equally doesn't support rearward-flying debris, in fact it strengthens the exact opposite??
(https://i.postimg.cc/przm1NXv/Marilyn-Sitzman-head-open-up.jpg)
These Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses just an hour or two later were interviewed and all said what they saw and guess what, they all saw what the Zapruder film shows! How about that!
2b. In Hofeling's latest presentation, Hofeling boasts that him and his team of modern researchers are working off the fabled 6K Zapruder film print which came from a second generation NARA copy and then was logarithmically improved! Let's see where that takes us?
This GIF demonstrates a "logarithmically" adjusted Hofeling frame over an original Zapruder frame and the obvious strong red bias just increases and crushes the blacks and all for what? For the misguided hope of artificially enhancing JFK's back of head shadow and this deception is the exact the opposite of what a logarithmically manipulated image is designed to show.
Hofeling also links to a video which shows his team analysing their high res 6K logarithmically enhanced Zapruder frames and even though this video capture lose a little resolution, the much lauded microscopically visible film grain is a joke and the clearly visible macro blocking is an embarrassment. It's no wonder that previous to this that they only showed zoomed out images which hid their poor copies and awful artefacts.
A near original Zapruder Film frame demonstrates the Back of head shadow showing subtle shade variation, a feathered edge and clear film grain.
On this supposed 6K frame grab, the microscopic visible film grain is severely lacking, the macro blocking is painfully obvious and the hard edged, solid coloured back of head shadow is not seen on the original.
2c. Hofeling has been very busy making all sorts of infographics, but what use are they if they are intellectually dishonest? In the following table, his team compares JFK's hair to Connally's grey hair in the same frame, Z317 but we have different ambient lighting, different angle of incidence and different reflective properties then declares same same! Give me a break! How about comparing Kellerman and Kennedy? Nah, that would give the game away.
And upon closer examination the "drop-off" is only visible in their horrible attempt to "logarithmically" enhance/alter the Zapruder original.
My second generation Zapruder vs Hofeling's dogs breakfast!
2d. Hofeling also cites two Hollywood experts who don't seem to have the relevant credentials for a detailed analysis of the back of head "patch" but even if they did, they were no doubt showed the above fraudulent "logarithmically" enhanced/altered Zapruder frames which makes their opinions worthless.
2e. Hofeling also makes the same claim as Davidson, that because some eyewitnesses saw the Limo stop or slow down then that must mean the Zapruder film was faked but how reliable are these eyewitnesses who saw these two contradictory events, it's physically impossible for a Limo to stop and slow down at the same time but the Zapruder film does in fact show the Limo to slow down, so some of the witnesses were correct and some were wrong, it's as simple as that!
In conclusion, and I've said this before, whatever could be done with celluloid film in 1963 can be done infinitely easier using computers and photoshop but I still haven't seen anybody replicate anything that was alleged to have occurred with the Zapruder film? Why can't someone film a car stop and then edit the film to show that the car didn't stop? I can tell you why, because even with advanced SFX, the job would be mammoth, it would require the car element to be digitally removed, then because the car slows, stops and starts this car element would be excised and then we require three dimensional perspective correction to be reinserted over the constantly updating background. And BTW just editing out some frames would look absurd, so don't even go there.
And finally, David Healey who worked in the film/TV industry provided this proof of concept image where he used Photoshop an image manipulation tool which was unheard of for at least a couple of decades after 1963(the technology at the time was literally a sharp knife and sticky tape) and it just looks fake AF and it's only a single frame, imagine the mess that would be created by a string of these in photoreal film!
JohnM
I still recall your spurious argument that Nix and Zapruder filmed from such drastically different angles that the readily apparent contradiction between what they show about Agent Hill and Jackie Kennedy's relative positions at the same moment in time is just an optical illusion.
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.
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?"
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?"
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!"