JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Walter Ego]

Did you do the homework assigned to you, pages 86 & 87 of Chapter 3 of the WCR?

The dog ate his homework

Instructing Robert is a real chore but let's remember this forum is hosted by an educational foundation so let's give it the old college try... though I don't think Robert has advanced to college-level work yet.

 

[Walter Ego]

More Instruction For Robert

A first generation copy is not an original.

No, but a copy made from the camera original before it was damaged would contain all the "missing" frames. Zapruder had several copies made from the camera original before the film was sold to Life magazine. (This was explained in the link I provided that you didn't read.) One copy with the original went to Life magazine. Another copy went to the Secret Secret service.

If the conspirators had altered the original film, these complete copies would have exposed their evil deed.

Let's add film restoration to the list of subjects Robert knows nothing about. Many classic films have been restored by replacing the missing and damaged segments from first generation complete prints rediscovered in film archives.

There are no "missing" frames.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, but a copy made from the camera original before it was damaged would contain all the "missing" frames. Zapruder had several copies made from the camera original before the film was sold to Life magazine. (This was explained in the link I provided that you didn't read.) One copy with the original went to Life magazine. Another copy went to the Secret Secret service.

If the conspirators had altered the original film, these complete copies would have exposed their evil deed.

Let's add film restoration to the list of subjects Robert knows nothing about. Many classic films have been restored by replacing the missing and damaged segments from first generation complete prints rediscovered in film archives.

There are no "missing" frames.

Indeed. The best way to think of first generation copies is to consider them in the same way as copies of photographs developed from a single original set of negatives.

The reason for degradation of copies is when a copy is taken from a copy (second generation) or a copy taken of that copy (third gen) and so forth. These are going to mimic all the minor flaws of the gloss or scratches in the film from previous generations, losing clarity.

First generation copies, which in theory could number in their hundreds or thousands as with cinema releases, will have the same frames. Even a poor copy from generation Z would indicate what frames are missing.

Still. The real question is what could a theoretical missing frame show? There is no exit wound before, and none after. Missing frames do not indicate later frames have been tampered with.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Still. The real question is what could a theoretical missing frame show? There is no exit wound before, and none after. Missing frames do not indicate later frames have been tampered with.

The missing frames show the conspirators placing the thermite.

 

[catsmate]

again, why didn't they just smother him with a pillow?

Or mess with his medication.

 

[Robert Prey]

Indeed. The best way to think of first generation copies is to consider them in the same way as copies of photographs developed from a single original set of negatives.

The reason for degradation of copies is when a copy is taken from a copy (second generation) or a copy taken of that copy (third gen) and so forth. These are going to mimic all the minor flaws of the gloss or scratches in the film from previous generations, losing clarity.

First generation copies, which in theory could number in their hundreds or thousands as with cinema releases, will have the same frames. Even a poor copy from generation Z would indicate what frames are missing.

Still. The real question is what could a theoretical missing frame show? There is no exit wound before, and none after. Missing frames do not indicate later frames have been tampered with.

How would you know an original from an altered "original"???? Fact is, this photo expert has a point:

"The final uptake, Zapruder has it in the can, the film as it sit’s in the camera, BEFORE it get’s to Kodak is the LAST time we can know for sure that it’s in it’s original state. All bets are off when that film enters Kodak - Dallas. We’re told Kodak can’t do the optical prints, fine Jamieson Film can do them. That’s the first RED flag for me Kodak* doesn’t have any Double 8mm PRINT stock available - gott’a use camera stock for print’s ah, yeah... right. Let me get this straight Kodak only sells film and film processing, that’s their corporate mission, their lifeblood even. And NO print film for the film of the CENTURY? (A project that may provide a little interest is why camera original film was used for the Zapruder optical prints -- could bumping from 8mm to 16mm look a lot better if it’s coming off of Kodacolor camera stock? hmm. Of course it does ! ! ! Oh... by the way, over the years we’ve been told about emulsion side out stuff regarding the ZAP film can’t this - that.... maybe one of these photo experts on the LN side of the aisle would provide me with the proper definition of bipack film printing more commonly called emulsion to emulsion printing.. One could make ANY camera original duplicate in a bipack setup look exactly like the original -- emulsion side out ... for the edge numbers, I hope this doesn’t come as to much of a shock but there is film manufactured withOUT edge #’s and footage count indications."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

 

[EventHorizon]

Oh goodie. More useless speculation. Still no evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How would you know an original from an altered "original"???? Fact is, this photo expert has a point:

"The final uptake, Zapruder has it in the can, the film as it sit’s in the camera, BEFORE it get’s to Kodak is the LAST time we can know for sure that it’s in it’s original state. All bets are off when that film enters Kodak - Dallas. We’re told Kodak can’t do the optical prints, fine Jamieson Film can do them. That’s the first RED flag for me Kodak* doesn’t have any Double 8mm PRINT stock available - gott’a use camera stock for print’s ah, yeah... right. Let me get this straight Kodak only sells film and film processing, that’s their corporate mission, their lifeblood even. And NO print film for the film of the CENTURY? (A project that may provide a little interest is why camera original film was used for the Zapruder optical prints -- could bumping from 8mm to 16mm look a lot better if it’s coming off of Kodacolor camera stock? hmm. Of course it does ! ! ! Oh... by the way, over the years we’ve been told about emulsion side out stuff regarding the ZAP film can’t this - that.... maybe one of these photo experts on the LN side of the aisle would provide me with the proper definition of bipack film printing more commonly called emulsion to emulsion printing.. One could make ANY camera original duplicate in a bipack setup look exactly like the original -- emulsion side out ... for the edge numbers, I hope this doesn’t come as to much of a shock but there is film manufactured withOUT edge #’s and footage count indications."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

And...?

 

[Walter Ego]

How would you know an original from an altered "original"???? Fact is, this photo expert has a point:

"The final uptake, Zapruder has it in the can, the film as it sit’s in the camera, BEFORE it get’s to Kodak is the LAST time we can know for sure that it’s in it’s original state. All bets are off when that film enters Kodak - Dallas. We’re told Kodak can’t do the optical prints, fine Jamieson Film can do them. That’s the first RED flag for me Kodak* doesn’t have any Double 8mm PRINT stock available - gott’a use camera stock for print’s ah, yeah... right. Let me get this straight Kodak only sells film and film processing, that’s their corporate mission, their lifeblood even. And NO print film for the film of the CENTURY? (A project that may provide a little interest is why camera original film was used for the Zapruder optical prints -- could bumping from 8mm to 16mm look a lot better if it’s coming off of Kodacolor camera stock? hmm. Of course it does ! ! ! Oh... by the way, over the years we’ve been told about emulsion side out stuff regarding the ZAP film can’t this - that.... maybe one of these photo experts on the LN side of the aisle would provide me with the proper definition of bipack film printing more commonly called emulsion to emulsion printing.. One could make ANY camera original duplicate in a bipack setup look exactly like the original -- emulsion side out ... for the edge numbers, I hope this doesn’t come as to much of a shock but there is film manufactured withOUT edge #’s and footage count indications."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

And, one might ask, so what? Even the "altered" Z film does not show an exit wound on the back of JFK's head where it must be if your shot from the Grassy Knoll theory is correct. I guess the conspirators goofed on that little detail.

It would be much easier, if no more convincing, for you to say the Z film was altered to remove the visual evidence of a rear exit wound. I'm not sure why you haven't taken this leap. Some of the conspiracy authors you've quoted have taken the plunge.

David Lifton, author of Best Evidence, says it "wasn't easy" but the conspiracists "blacked out" the back of the president's head to conceal an exit wound that was visible in the Z film (before it was altered) and "painted on" what looked like an exit wound to the right front of the president's head.

From the endnotes of the Bug Man's Reclaiming History.

“painted on” what looked like a large exit wound: David Lifton says that for this painting to have taken place, the Zapruder film would have to have been “bumped [up] to” a 35-millimeter film and then a “matte artist” would have to have been employed to “draw pictures on what was already there and thus change the configuration of wounds on President Kennedy’s head” (Lifton, “Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,” in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.345).

Another leading alterationist, Harrison Edward Livingstone, who has become quite knowledgeable about the film, and goes considerably beyond Lifton in his analysis, agrees with Lifton on this basic point. He writes, “The film shows the upper right side of the President’s face blowing out—a large, balloon-shaped object,” which he calls “the Blob.” He actually goes on to say that “there is no medical or physical way to explain what is seen in the film other than to postulate that the Blob is drawn onto the film to make it appear that a shot from behind has removed part of his face.” (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p.77)

Bugliosi; Note to p.506

You are twisting yourself into knots to deny the Z film doesn't show what it so obviously does show, namely that Kennedy's head wound was the result of a shot from the rear (i.e., from the direction of the TSBD).

First you said the film is a Rorschach test that shows what the viewer wants it to show and then that the film is a "blur" that doesn't show anything and now that a few missing frames (which are not in fact missing) means the film is unreliable as evidence.

Lifton's and Livingstone's explanation, bizarre as it it, covers the bases and, while making them look nutty, doesn't make them look desperate which is how you're making yourself look.

 

[GregHouseMD]

Robert Prey, please answer this question. Try not to deflect or get yourself banned before you answer it.

What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving a conspiracy? On previous JFK boards, no one dare answer betraying (A. a lack of scholarship on the subject, or (B. a retreat into the fog of a thousand pieces of evidenciary minutia, not one piece of which holds up under scrutiny..

If you can ask the question the other way, I would hope you can answer it from your viewpoint.

Please note, if it's not possible for you to offer a single strong piece of evidence, then demanding the same in favor of a lone gunman is just as silly.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert Prey, please answer this question. Try not to deflect or get yourself banned before you answer it.

What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving a conspiracy? On previous JFK boards, no one dare answer betraying (A. a lack of scholarship on the subject, or (B. a retreat into the fog of a thousand pieces of evidenciary minutia, not one piece of which holds up under scrutiny..

If you can ask the question the other way, I would hope you can answer it from your viewpoint.

Please note, if it's not possible for you to offer a single strong piece of evidence, then demanding the same in favor of a lone gunman is just as silly.

This has been answered already. The Best Evidence is the head wound as witnessed first hand by the medical personnel at Parkland and others such as on the scene Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, namely a large blow-out in the back of the head indicating a shot from the right front and thus a conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

And, one might ask, so what? Even the "altered" Z film does not show an exit wound on the back of JFK's head where it must be if your shot from the Grassy Knoll theory is correct. I guess the conspirators goofed on that little detail.

It would be much easier, if no more convincing, for you to say the Z film was altered to remove the visual evidence of a rear exit wound. I'm not sure why you haven't taken this leap. Some of the conspiracy authors you've quoted have taken the plunge.

David Lifton, author of Best Evidence, says it "wasn't easy" but the conspiracists "blacked out" the back of the president's head to conceal an exit wound that was visible in the Z film (before it was altered) and "painted on" what looked like an exit wound to the right front of the president's head.

From the endnotes of the Bug Man's Reclaiming History.



You are twisting yourself into knots to deny the Z film doesn't show what it so obviously does show, namely that Kennedy's head wound was the result of a shot from the rear (i.e., from the direction of the TSBD).

First you said the film is a Rorschach test that shows what the viewer wants it to show and then that the film is a "blur" that doesn't show anything and now that a few missing frames (which are not in fact missing) means the film is unreliable as evidence.

Lifton's and Livingstone's explanation, bizarre as it it, covers the bases and, while making them look nutty, doesn't make them look desperate which is how you're making yourself look.

A theory is a theory, but the first hand observations of the Medical Personnel at Parkland is an un-alterable fact.

 

[GregHouseMD]

This has been answered already. The Best Evidence is the head wound as witnessed first hand by the medical personnel at Parkland and others such as on the scene Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, namely a large blow-out in the back of the head indicating a shot from the right front and thus a conspiracy.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

Still waiting for an answer, what you claim above is not supported with physical or photographic evidence.

Now you will point out that of course there is no physical evidence to support your claim since the conspirators destroyed or modified it all.

How inconvenient for you.

 

[matt.tansy]

A theory is a theory, but the first hand observations of the Medical Personnel at Parkland is an un-alterable fact.

Dr. Pepper Jenkins.

D'oh!

 

[Tomtomkent]

This has been answered already. The Best Evidence is the head wound as witnessed first hand by the medical personnel at Parkland and others such as on the scene Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, namely a large blow-out in the back of the head indicating a shot from the right front and thus a conspiracy.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

So your best evidence is a claim for a head wound, for which there is material evidence it does not exist, and no material evidence it did?

Can you prove that drawing is more accurate than the photographic record yet?

 

[Tomtomkent]

A theory is a theory, but the first hand observations of the Medical Personnel at Parkland is an un-alterable fact.

Please explain why the Parkland witnesses give unalterable facts and yet the witnesses to the shooting itself, the autopsy staff and seemingly any other witnesses who do not support your theory can be flawed?

Please explain why the uncropped death stare photo you claimed supported the entry wound idea features a large exit wound to the top of the skull not at the rear.

Please explain why the zfilm and polaroid show there was no exit wound when JFK left the plaza.

 

[GregHouseMD]

If the Z film was so damning, if it showed things the conspirators did not want seen, if they had control over the film while it was at Kodak in Dallas for processing, why did they not simply destroy it and claim it did not get exposed?

If they had simply replaced the film with a different roll and strip a few of the sprocket holes out, they could then claim the film never fed through the camera and nothing was exposed.

Why do something so risky as altering the film?

Care to answer that one Robert?

BTW, your list of 30 people at Parkland Hospital who saw the hole in JFK's head included military and government employees. Were they not subject to the same pressure as the "frightened" military autopsy doctors?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Good point. Destroy the film and claim it was damged during development. Z himself would not suspect foul play because of some hidden meaning to the film. He was an eye witness who had noreason to lie,no intelligence connections, and was willing to describe how he saw JFK shot from behind.

Unlike the parkland allegations he has photographic evidence to back it up.


There is of course a double standard at play. Robert claims other witnesses can lie or be mistaken, that photographs can be faked and indeed it should be assumed they were for the purposes of a conspiracy with out assuming the same, and dissproving the same, for his own evidence. Exactly why "all" staff at Parkland were in a possition to testify to the nature of a headwound is beyond me. If doctors are saving my life the janitor should not be getting in the way to take a look. More importantly no reason has ever been offered why one narrative should be considered objectively more honest than the other. Robert simply supposes the autopsy was dishonest on the grounds of Parkland being honest.

To maintain a single standard all testemony should be considered honest until proven otherwise. Unfortunately the fact, proven beyond any doubt by indipendant photographic sources that verify each other, was there was no exit wound to the back of the head when JFK left the plaza. There was not one at the time of autopsy. The photos Robert claims to be pre-autopsy and reliable do not match his description unless heavily cropped. If we look at the rest of the photos taken at the same time, in the same location, we see a small entry wound on the back of the head, no large exit wound to the back of the head.

When he claims that is demonstratably fake he should both renounce his own death stare photo as fake, then demonstrate it is false, which will no doubt be saying "the photo doesn't match the witnesss" which is itself not proof the photo is fake, but can be proof the witnesswas wrong.

 

[Robrob]

Oswald claimed to be a Marxist, but actually was a loyal patriotic American who loved his country, loved his president, was a former US Marine, worked for Naval Intelligence, as well as an operative for CIA and FBI, was sent to USSR after having been sheep dipped as a disloyal American, but never revoked his citizenship, was apparently sent to language school so that he could speak fluent Russian, then sent to USSR so that he could spy for the US. While he made a big splash with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he was also working with anti-Castro groups at the same time. Someday, when the full truth is accepted, he should be posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom.

There are just so many things wrong with that quote, I don't know where to begin.


Let's start here:

...was apparently sent to language school so that he could speak fluent Russian

LHO tried to teach himself Russian during his three years in the USMC. He was never "sent" anywhere and certainly not for a year to the military language school in Monterey, CA. In the USMC, he took a Russian language proficiency test and scored "poor." After serving in Japan and at El Torro air base, he left the USMC and moved (via a circuitous route) to Minsk. He lived and worked in Russia for 2.5 years - marrying a Russian woman. That's how he became "fluent" in Russian.

See how you took an established historical fact and then twisted it out of shape in order to fit your preconceived POV?

 

[Robert Prey]

Dr. Pepper Jenkins.


[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/F1UAJ.jpg[/qimg]


D'oh!

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.