Return to JFK Main Page
Return to Zapruder Film Page

To say I am impressed by the tremendous amount of research that is evident in your pages is an understatement. I am blown away! I am not any kind of photographic expert, but I have always felt that if we could not trust the Z-film, then any of the evidence, maybe all of the evidence, could be fake. Thanks for restoring my faith in the Z-film.

Thank you for the info Clint. I appreciate it.

Just as Cyril Wecht dismissed the body alteration theory by saying that even with a team of the finest surgeons, he couldn't pull it off, so too the best scientists in the world could not ave altered the film and left no traces behind that would be obvious to photo experts subjecting the film to close analysis.

I have held an interest in the Kennedy Assasination for many years. I read my 1st book on the subject at age 14 {Crossfire} and followed that up with the WC Report. I have since read every book on the subject I could get my hands on. I must admit, however, that over the years I have allowed my interest to wane.

I have been to Dealey Plaza several times, and to this day am still moved beyond description. 2 years ago, I took my wife and 4 year old son to Dallas and to the School Book Depository. And even though my wife has never followed the events of 22 November, 1963, and her only knowledge was the garbage you are taught in school, she was moved to tears after the tour. She really enjoyed the Conspiracy Museum just up the street {I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about}. I spent the entire trip back to Oklahoma answering questions about the assasination.

I will be spending more time on your website since I have been out of the game for so long. I am looking forward to sifting through all the information I can get my hands on. Thank you again for running a very entertaining and informative site.

Keep looking for the truth......

I enjoyed your comments re the JT v. Fetzer brouhaha.

Thanks for the update. I've been trying to tell people that they're dreaming when they think 8mm film alteration is as easy as they suggest. I've been following Hollywood special effects history since the 60s, including reading quite a few technical articles about how various effects were achieved, the problems in making things look real to the eye on-screen, etc. Meanwhile, I keep seeing the most absurd claims about alteration capabilities, about facilities like NPIC (clearly undermined by the recent documents cited by Lifton and Fetzer), and the like.

The alteration arguments rely on the improbable, the unavailable, the unproven, the wildly speculative, and the downright nonsensical to make their case. It all comes down to who did it, why, when, where and how--and I've seen no answers that make a bit of real sense.

I wish they knew it was over, but that assumes rational evaluation of the evidence. If that happened, we wouldn't have had to waste so much time and effort with the alteration nonsense....

From David Lifton:

Bradford,
You are really a total ass.

and

Do we have a case of broken communication? Yeah, you bet we do. Because you are not playing with a full deck.

and

So go your merry way on these issues. I find it ironic that someone who titles his bulletin board "Attention to Details" is, as far as I am concerned, so woefully wrong and out of focus on the big issues.

and

There is no "pro-tampering" crowd. There is only data. You give away your own bias, lack of knowledge, and smart-ass attitude when you use language like that.

and

You're a two-bit paranoid, Clint. Do something constructive. Pay attention to details.

I guess I can scratch David off my Christmas card list...

You are holding Lifton and Fetzer's feet in the fire RIGHT NOW. And they are squirming. What I'm wondering is if Lifton has any plans to capitalize on this financially. Is there a new book in the offing? If so, then he will need to be able to get it through the guantlet. His publisher is not going to want to sink a bunch of money into a publication if the story has been debunked.

So, if it comes down to motivations, Clint, then you as the ILLUMINATOR are wearing the white hat because you are standing up for the truth. This is Lifton's occupation. He is in it for the money. True history usually does not sell as well as some spectacular new claim.

Nice job on the website.

I must tell you that I consider honestly that you deserve high praise for your very very good work. Congratulations for you intelligent articles and for that page loaded with interesting and great-quality articles. In fact you show rational and mature judgement and intellectual attitude.

In a recent post, Josiah Thompson has employed the logical trick (rhetorical device) of...

Fetzer rambling DELETED...I respect you, my Visitors, more than to subject you to hysterical rants...

The emiment Logician of Assassination Science, Jim Fetzer and Dr. Mantik, Livingstone and the whole crew pushing a faked Z-film have fatally wounded themselves. Who can ever take them seriously again?

FROM JACK WHITE:
THERE IS NO DOUBT OF ZAVADA'S IGNORANCE OF ANIMATION TECHNIQUES. EVERY DAY HOLLYWOOD ANIMATORS PRODUCE THOUSANDS OF FRAMES OF ANIMATION FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THE 400 FRAMES OF THE Z FILM. ZAVADA IS TRULY IRRELEVANT TO ALTERATION.

A common theme for Jack, unfortunately. He hasn't read the Zavada Report, yet loves to denounce it for not covering issues it was never designed to address.

I agree with you on the soundness of some of the pioneers in this research - Josiah Thompson, Paul Hoch, Vincent Salandria (who was also at the recent Dallas conferences), and others. It is unfortunate that we have lost some of them recently, like Richard E. Sprague and Penn Jones Jr.

I realize that the pro-alterationists have not recanted and may still "believe." But the door should be open when they finally weigh it all out and accept that they have been wrong. They have sort of painted themselves into a corner with their vigorous defense of the alteration theory. It is time for them to bite the bullet and come clean though.

Let's see:
The story now is that Kodak faked the film at a secret lab in Rochester, New York, on Friday, the CIA got the film on Friday night, worked on it Saturday night, altered it in a lab that wasn't equipped to process movies or color film, rushed the film back to Dallas so that the altered version could be sold to LIFE - wait, the chronology makes no sense, but that's what they're arguing, though they usually only argue it one point at a time, so that their intended audience doesn't see the whole picture--and the fact that it doesn't hang together.

I agree that Mantik is likely to go on to do good work in this case, as he has done in the past, once the alteration thing fades out. I'm not so sure that some of his colleagues, who have done cheerleading rather than real research, are as promising.

Name one pro-alteration argument that hasn't been dispelled by one of the following people:

1) Art Snyder
2) Tink Thompson
3) Martin Shackleford
4) Anthony Marsh
5) Roland Zavada

Quite literally, between the five, I've seen every discrepancy, argument and hypothesis erased as being sinister. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Mantik but I'm not sure if he's had the opportunity to hear Art's anti-alteration arguments. Ultimately, this will serve the purpose of getting down to the core of what is in debate and what isn't.

Jim Fetzer writes:
THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL: I have no doubt that this was a professional hit. The author did not even mention the most important findings reported in the book and distorted its contents in an obvious attempt to mislead readers about its contents...

Yeah, James...the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is chock-full of professional "hit" journalists...

Jack White's new video contains this "errata" sheet:

VIDEO RESEARCHERS PLEASE NOTE:
My narration notes that the replica JFK limo placed in the Z313 location by professional surveyors is provably about 8 feet too far east, which also places Mary Moorman too far east by the same amount. I do not know whether this egregious error resulted from faulty furnished documentation, human error, or some unknown motive by Turner Network Television, producers of a documentary which hired the surveyors. My use of limo photos in this slightly errant position has no significant effect on my research or conclusions, but you should be aware of the surveyor error.

Well, there goes Jack's "horizontal plane proof" of Z-film alteration. Now he should read Jean Hill's Warren Commission testimony, where she states she and Mary Moorman never stepped onto the asphalt, like Jack would now like us to believe...

Jack White writes:
Mr. Jaynes ought to know what big words mean before using them improperly. It is he and others who are attempting a DIALECTIC. I have no dialectic, just some original research. Jaynes, Parks, Bradford, Marsh and others attempt to force their dialectic on the rest of us. -Jack White

By the way, Jack, "dialectic" is the art or practice of examining opinions or ideas logically - often by the method of Q & A - so as to determine their validity. It is a form of logical argumentation. Ask Fetzer for assistance understanding this form of critical thinking.

And I THANK YOU for including me in the group of "Jaynes, Parks, Bradford, and Marsh" as we examine the opinions of researchers with the common goal of discovering the truth.