Fred's Flim-Flam Written by Matt Douthit at Kennedys & King with an Afterword by James DiEugenio

I’ve been following the critiques of the Kennedys&King article referenced in the EF thread titled “ Fred's Flim-Flam Written by Matt Douthit at Kennedys & King with an Afterword by James DiEugenio”

One of the criticisms lodged by Steve Roe and David von Pein is that Connally was both not a good witness and that what he consistently stated actually supports the single bullet theory. Specifically, they say Connally could not see JFK by turning to his right to look behind. But the SBT supporters had to place Connally a foot or so inboard (to his left) to make the magic bullet zig-zag in mid-air disappear. So, if Connally turned to his right after the first shot he should have easily seen JFK if JFK had remained in his initial position. The  fact that Connally did not see JFK is consistent with JFK being wounded and slumped to the left and is also consistent with a finite amount of time to have elapsed for that to have happened before Connally started to turn to the left and felt the impact of being wounded himself.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28809-freds-flim-flam-written-by-matt-douthit-at-kennedys-king-with-an-afterword-by-james-dieugenio-powerful/

A plague on both their houses.

This seemingly irresistible urge to lower everything to tribalism; polarisation and insisting upon viewing facts, witnesses,  documents etc through some absurd reductionist binary prism,  is a total waste of time. 

Without lapsing into overly simplistic rhetoric myself,  I honestly think this article raises far more ( troubling) questions than it answers. Jim, and Matt seem more interested in defending the sanctity of their cause than concentrating on the actual facts. Once again answering the questions 1 they would like to have been asked or 2 they think they can answer,  and 3, worst of all, attempting to resort to smears and cheap insinuations. Who gives a fuck what Steve Roe calls his shitty website? Or what Fred Litwin may or may not have believed 20, 30 or even 40 years ago?

If you can't attack the message attempt to attack,  or somehow discredit the messenger. I may be wrong,  or overly critical,  but Jim seems far more concerned with shoring up his reputation,  playing to the gallery,  pressing the right buttons to evoke the instinctive,  almost Pavlovian reaction. Rather than how the documentary,  and far more importantly,  the case itself is viewed by the wider audience. 

In the end it's the facts that matter. 

Ii know it's a lot to ask,  like us all Jim is only human ,no doubt he's incredibly proud of the documentary,  and equally sensitive to criticism,  especially when the critic has apparently made it his business to fashion an obscure cottage industry out of DiEugenio bashing. Some might even say Fred has an obsession,  bordering on the unhealthy,  with trying to debunk Jim and his hero,  Garrison,  who he( Jim) views through a wholly distorted,  unrealistic lens. Making some sort of beau ideal Arthurian hero out of the brave, gifted , but  ultimately, sublimely flawed NO district attorney. 

It is indeed a lot to ask but consider the stakes, Jim needs to rise above mere egotism and petty factional squabbling. Please feel free to administer a sound kick in the larrytrotters if I sound like a holier than thou pissant but Jim needs to start putting the case first. It shouldn't matter who discovers the facts.  To ignore a potential lead,  be it a document or witness , simply because you disagree with the discoverer is pure bullshit.

The quasi religious zeal of hard core doctrinaire LN/ CTs is pure regressive self destructive bullshit. 
In the kingdom of the blind one who knowlingly seeks to make themselves partially sighted is not only a fool, they are often blinder than those who genuinely cannot see. 

Sometimes seeing only half the facts, sometimes even less, can be more distorting and disorientating than seeing nothing at all 

As is so often the case we've been reduced to mind numbing bickering, resorting to empty sloganeering: emotionally charged language,  appeals to false authority and hollow pleas for tribal allegiance. 

It's the extremists on both sides who invariably make the most noise,  drowning out the more nuanced and measured voices. Extremists thrive on emotions and blind unthinking sentiment. Sometimes those ancient words,  borne on both breeze and tide, and also carried deep within,  are not the bearers of ageless wisdom , rather the prophets of doom, warning,  pleading,  begging. Division is merely a symptom , the real sickness still lives within us all. 

And the balms to ease the suffering? The flags, tribes, nations? Those soaring cathedrals, altars rich with wisdom,  they seek only to make us sicker still. 

Sorry for going so far off topic but both sides are equally guilty. Jim and Matt make valid points. Some of Litwins attempted post hoc rationalisations are beyond absurd. First and foremost Fred is a polemicist,  a cultural warrior. To him the assassination,  and for some reason Garrison,  thus by extension his most vocal champion,  in particular,  is merely another front in his never ending jihad 

Saying that,  Jim should have the courage and the vision ( not to mention the intellectual honesty) to answer the questions he was asked,  and if need be,  accept he made some errors and attempt to rectify them. He just makes himself look ridiculous,  not to mention vaguely pathetic,  ignoring valid questions,  playing childish games,  " I have so in so on ignore", persistently quoting himself,  and perhaps worst of all launching into long multi post harangues; one part sermon , two parts an uninspiring call to arms,  an attempt to rally his sagging troops. 

Like Roland blowing his horn at the pass of Ronscevalles.

Perhaps,  like so many before Jim is mistaking myth for actual history. 

Like Roland in the famous chanson, his enemies are his sworn enemies. In Roland's case the Saracens,  in Jim's case,  the LNs ..

But, if he had actually read the historical accounts ( and,  like Little Barnie,  the Bard of Barnet,  understand the wider geostrategic hegemonic hierarchical approach as opposed to the more simplistic ethnopolitical tectonics of macroeconomic supercalifragilisticexpealidociousness) his actual enemies were the Vascones ( the Basques) fellow Christians ( in case our 13 inch headed head shrinking chum and crack medievalist,  amongst his other limitless attributes,  DR Neiderhut( Harvard Medical School Class of 83 you simpering plebs) shows up, yes, I know there's still some doubt regarding the Vascones religious practices and beliefs)

The Oliver Stone of 2023 is most definitely no Charlemagne. Some might say his recent activities have actually undermined his earlier contributions.

Well said!

Just about everyone comes to this topic with an ideological angle and once time and effort is invested, an emotional attachment develops. Positions harden.

Jim D is sincere and does great work but I think he idolizes JFK too much. I don’t buy Dale Myers 3-D graphics simulation of the single bullet theory (convinced that physical recreations designed to confirm it have actually disproved it), but his debunking of Badgeman is very good. Myers gives hints that he’s from the political Right and holds J.D. Tippit in as high esteem as Jim D does JFK.

If the research is sound and defendable, use it. If not, don’t. You have to consider what biases might be at work in the gray areas.

Perfectly stated Lanceman. 

A big shout out too to Tom Gram, over on the cranially enhanced forum of ill repute. For his highly complimentary words about this forum. As well as being one of the best researchers out there , he's a class act too, never losing his composure,  or resorting to morale sapping playground antics. 

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read proper research. Careful,  meticulous and methodical. Researchers who obviously respect the subject and their fellow researchers. Tom Gram,  Lanceman and a few others,  it's no accident,  or indeed a coincidence,  the best researchers/ commentators ending up here.

All roads lead to ROKC (!)

To say this forum is merely another " CT echo chamber " is a downright falsehood. A gross, almost slanderous mischaracterisation. Perhaps,  becoming so inured and used to infantile bickering and petty tribal squabbles, they believe all " debate " must ultimately devolve to childish petulance and slapstick. 

Disagreement is often healthy,  it prevents ideas from becoming stale, and beliefs from ossifying  and hardening into dogma. Just because here at ROKC we choose to behave like adults,  rather than calling each other disinformation agents or mindless stooges,  doesn't mean we all march in lockstep. 

Like some doppelganged zombie Army.

Yes, so the language can sometimes get colourful,  and charlatans,  bullshit merchants,  cranks , holocaust deniers and the assorted denizens of the darkest netherregions of trooferdom are given short shrift. Speaking from a purely personal perspective I admit I have at times overstepped the bounds. Also, ive wasted far too much time and energy on vapid non entities. But , saying that,  in my defence I'd argue that satire/ parody is a perfectly valid, and sometimes devastatingly effective way of exposing the cranks,  charlatans and buffoons. 

The HARVEY and LEE doppelganger fantasy for example. Not only is the " theory " itself almost laughably convoluted( not to mention full of glaring inconsistencies and illogical internal contradictions) the way it has been pimped ( I use the word specifically) and the way the handful of remaining exgetes have chosen to present themselves and their " evidence " makes a complete mockery of serious independent historical research. 

Imho at least,  nothing anyone here has ever said,  or perhaps could ever say,  could surpass the vulgarity,  not to mention the sheer regressive idiocy of some of the " theories " that have been ruthlessly and vociferously touted. I'd say the individuals who have been parodied and satirised here have,  by their own folly and fallacious fumfurring,  have more than earned their place in the halls of shame. 

This case is positively groaning under the weight of useless,  long debunked factoids that have been transformed into graven idols. Simply because they appear to hint at some nebulous undefined conspiracy. Or because they can be used as scaffolding to prop up some rickety theory. 

This case has been made unsolvable for many reasons,  one of the major ones being this unwillingness to part with venerable conspiracy shibboleths. How can you possibly hope to solve a case when most of the " facts" ensure it remains unsolvable? Relying on bogus facts,  bogus theories and a virtual conveyor belt of bogus witnesses has produced nigh on 60 fucking years of equally bogus solutions.  I suspect a significant minority relish this seemingly terminal impasse. And,  thus, have happily contributed to the quagmire. Primarily for reasons relating to ego and status. To ensure their own little niche, and to be sure their oversized  overstuffed rear ends ( ang egos)get even shinier,  from sharing sofas and conference podiums with the likes of Juddufki,  Larry Rivera,  Chairman of the OIC et al 

The Otto Skorzeny " solution " - supported by the almost Borley Rectory style appearance ( an apport or conjuration worthy of wily old Harry Price himself) of a mysterious,  hitherto unknown " datebook " ( how jolly decent and thoughtful of a key assassination planner to leave behind such a detailed account!)the kind of methodology; if so in so knew so in so and if so in so was in Dallas in 1947 then so in so must have been involved in the assassination,  that would out Trejo Paul fucking Trejo himself- is a strong contender for the most unconvincing of them all. And , as we all know,  from Zion all the way to Zeta Reticuli,  there's some pretty mindbendingly wacky contenders out there ( come back Penelope Pitstop all is forgiven)

Coup in Dallas should serve as a salutary lesson. How NOT to conduct an enquiry. I nearly choked on my infowars nutritional supplements when I saw the words " Priory of Sion " How anyone could even begin to take this long exposed ( and almost laughably inept) confidence trick remotely seriously is beyond me. Anyone who has actually taken the time to study 1 Otto Skorzeny's actual wartime record,  especially his SS personnel file and 2 His post war travels and travails,  instead of just gorging themselves on high fat revisionist stodge,  or watching a couple of fucking " documentaries " on YooToob, will tell you that the notion of him acting as some behind the scenes assassination svengali is arrant nonsense. Ralph Ganis's recent confection " The Skorzeny Files" was cod revisionist navel gazing at it's very worst. 

Back to  the Priory of Sion, it should serve as a stark reminder,  and as an ominous analogy too. Tragically there has been no shortage of Pierre Plantard wannabes, and even more tragically,  no shortage of starry eyed acolytes eager to believe. Beware of succumbing to your heart's desire. Beware of seeing what you want to see, rather than what's actually there to be seen. Far too many times the abyss has been transformed into a mirror. The unwary seeker will end up becoming dazzled ( blinded perhaps) by the reflection gazing back out. For the ripples on the surface of the abyss are caused not by the winds of change,  but by the playful spitefulnes of the trickster god himself. 

Those who long to see swastikas will see a suitably crooked cross; likewise those who yearn to see mafia goons, intel spooks,  good ole boys, or even lone nuts. Imho when you come across a witness/ document/ piece of evidence supportive of your preferred scenario,  you should be even more rigorous checking the provenance. 

I was incredibly fortunate to have an internationally recognised expert on Anglo Saxon England ( and world class scholar) as my tutor at university. He never underestimated his importance of the basics. 1 Let the facts themselves do the talking. 2 Sometimes it's equally ( occasionally more)important to understand who is doing the writing,  and why. ( Especially relevant when faced with early medieval charters!) 3 Never become emotionally involved with a subject. It's imperative to maintain a rigid sense of critical distance. Otherwise your thinking will become irrevocably skewered.

Lance is indeed welcome here... and there is a separate forum dedicated just to debunking theories that need to be taken off the table. What sort of CT echo chamber does that?

And as I've already said, if he wants to debate anything, cool. I absolutely promise it will be according to whatever reasonable rules he would like.

Apart from that, he can also join in any other discussion, or start his own.

The Ed Forum thread on “Unveiling the Limo Stop” is now over 30 pages of math that purports to show that the Z-film was altered to hide the supposed limo stop. Based on the questions it has generated, I think the original author is STILL the only one who understands his theory. I don’t want to join the forum but I did want to pose the question of how the Secret Service follow-up car managed to avoid crashing into the presidential limo. I inquired with the Ed Forum administrator whether I could join as “Guest” to ask a one time question. I was refused.

It says a lot that the Ed Forum has FAR greater difficulty with forum behavior than ROKC despite its rules for membership. And what’s up with the blurry personal photos?

lanceman wrote:The Ed Forum thread on “Unveiling the Limo Stop” is now over 30 pages of math that purports to show that the Z-film was altered to hide the supposed limo stop. Based on the questions it has generated, I think the original author is STILL the only one who understands his theory. I don’t want to join the forum but I did want to pose the question of how the Secret Service follow-up car managed to avoid crashing into the presidential limo. I inquired with the Ed Forum administrator whether I could join as “Guest” to ask a one time question. I was refused.

It says a lot that the Ed Forum has FAR greater difficulty with forum behavior than ROKC despite its rules for membership. And what’s up with the blurry personal photos?

No offence to anyone, but seriously, after near on sixty years they're still arguing about the limo stop. WTF!
ROKC is, as far as I can tell, one of the few sites whose sole mission is to have the case re looked at. These clowns do nothing but damage the cause. 

Within the 4 walls of some of these forums lays a sanctuary for these delusional, silly, nonsensical, BS theories. They're not serious discussions, they're not interested in moving the case forward. 

The general public's eyes glaze over when this sort of claptrap is fed to them. The good thing is this sort of stuff coming outta the Ed forum never really sees the light of day.

I hope the walls are padded!

lanceman wrote:I hope the walls are padded!

pfft! Maybe - maybe not.  

For most people at the EF it is just a hobby or pastime. Some people collect stamps, some listen to music and some people discuss JFK theories. If the case actually gets solved they would have to find another hobby.

With all due respect to Chris, the aforementioned thread is an utter embarrassment.  

An incoherent mush of impenetrable equations. Mental masturbation,  and in fucking public. The forum equivalent of dropping your trousers in a crowded public thoroughfare and energetically spanking one's , ahem, Bell and Howell movie camera , until the local constabulary arrives,  to hurriedly bundle you away. Placing you in a padded wagon alongside a frothing turps sozzled zealot  screeching incoherently about the Second Coming of the Dulux dog and the night he, BWF and Travis Walton were abducted by 10 foot Nordic aliens , who took them for a spin in their flying saucer,  round the 700 Wonders of the Galaxy,  including the Well Hung Gardens of Alpha Centauri....

It's the unacceptable face of conspiracism,  the sort of " conspiracy theory " that actually exceeds the very worst mainstream media stereotypes. 

Indecipherable nebulous and utterly pointless. Sorry Chris. Imho you're just wasting your time and your ability,  chasing phantasms and chimeras. Most troubling of all, it appears,  to me at least,  and I'm no mathematician,  in fact I am to mathematics what our old chum Fezzo the Fez is to rational thought and fluid articulate penmanship,  the whole thing is based on a provably false premise. Chris is basing his calculations on the FBI re enactment,  when,  by definition,  no re enactment,  however meticulous and carefully staged can ever hope to be perfect. 

On a whole other level , to my mind at least,  the very notion of alterationism is a catastrophic strategic error. Without doubt the Zapruder film has been THE major catalyst,  not once, but twice - when the outrage caused by its public debut on the Geraldo show prompted the HSCA, and then again after Oliver Stone's JFK; especially the climactic courtroom scene,  deploying the film, most notoriously frame 313, in a brutally direct narrative sequence,  using semiotics and the potency of art to reawaken decades of slumbering doubts   the Z film,  and what it appears to depict,  was arguably THE defining factor in the creation of the ARRB- trying to nullify THE single most potent pro conspiracy image( with the possible exception of the Prayerman footage) is utter fucking insanity. 

Not to mention the bungling amateurish methods that have been employed. 

If the film WAS altered,  imho, it's the equivalent of discovering the secret of the enemies " wonderweapon " Instead of deploying the weapon the alterationists seem perfectly content to dismantle it, standing around debating a load of meaningless trivia and arcane ephemera  while volley after volley of enemy shells come screaming in.

Not only does alterationism threaten to impugn the potency of arguably the most important p piece of pro conspiracy evidence,  the hapless research methodology,  little more than indiscriminate anomaly hunting,  and the utter lack of internal logic,  has been an absolute disaster. None of the pro alteration arguments have managed to withstand even the most rudimentary technical scrutiny. Remember all the bruhaha about the so called Hollywood 7? Hardened industry vets who were going to validate alterationism?

As usual,  it turned out to be yet another damp squib. The Hollywood 7 never appeared,  just another mirage,  shimmering briefly, in the wsterless desert wastes of rampant conspiracism. Instead,  the intrepid alterationists were forced to rely on the " expert opinions " of a certain David G Healy.  A character almost universally derided as a cartoonish semi inebriate. Apart from being absolutely clueless,  unaware of the very basics , he came up with a fantastically unrealistic alteration scenario- Mary fucking Poppins,  dancing penguins and travelling mattes- described as amateurish and unrealistic by actual experts. Spending over 20 years bouncing from forum to forum,  spewing foul mouthed non sequitur and relying on polarising rhetoric. Anyone who didn't buy the alterationists dribble was automatically labelled a lone neuter troll...

Yet another example of one of the chronic underlying problems of militant conspiracism: Looking at the wrong things in the wrong way. 

Instead of pursuing realistic factually based evidentiary leads, time and time again " research " has drifted off down esoteric dead ends, ultimately languishing in cul de sacs,  a couple of rabbit holes away from Wonderland itself. 

As for the 13 Inch Head forum? Certain newish members seem determined to ensure the Good Ship HMS Prig completes its mission of self annihilation. In the messiest most embarrassing way possible. 

Where the fuck did they dredge up clowns like Little Barnie,  DR Neiderhut( Harvard Medical School Class of 83 you cretinous peasants) , St Mattie of Shrivelled Koch,  incidentally what kind of deluded knobend uses a picture of himself WITH A FUCKING HALO ROUND HIS 13 INCH HEAD as an avatar?Benjamin Cole,  whose boring lugubrious drone reminds me of a 10th rate Philip Larkin wannabe in a poorly fitting PVC brownshirt, and perhaps,  worst of all, the semi illiterate Hickeyist and his hideous lone nutist sidekicks ( Bill Brown may well be the most repugnant fuckpig of them all. His  arrogance is nothing but the anaesthetic to dull the pain of his ignorance)? 

With the newly reappeared stalwart,  Raul Pigby,  the Dick Emery of conspiracy,  reciting Kremlin propaganda by rote,  instead of his usual repertoire: Greer shot JFK,  and every single film and photo was faked, riding shotgun,  the place is beginning to resemble some kind of grim semi hallucinatory Coney Island of the mind ;with doppelganged rollercoasters shrieking overhead , as pairs of black eyed orphans traipse through Uncle Ben Cole's Hall of Mirrored Holes, gazing dumbly at their own distorted ( and semi clad) reflections glaring back out at them...

Look at the fucking threads, regurgitating the same old shite. The quality of the comments ( rather the lack of) is perhaps even more depressing. Apart from the handful of ROKCers who have the patience, guts and the constitution , to brave the flurries of bullshit and mindless waffle,  in an attempt to provide some substance,  there's maybe half a dozen reasonably astute , intelligent and articulate contributors. Their idea of debate is posting ( usually banal and witless) politically charged tweets and You Tube clips from Fox fucking News etc, appended with some childish barbs.  In Little Barnie the Bard of Barnets case he sounds like some gauche teenager attempting to rewrite Romeo and Juliet using only cliches and meaningless jargon ( " Parting is such sweet sorry, like the macro economic geostrategic system being divided into a game of two halves,  Ron")

The rest are utter dross. Philistines in the truest sense. Monosyllabic thuggish blowhards stomping around in their ideological jackboots,  milquetoast simpletons,  eager to devour any morsel or conspiratorial tidbit,  no matter how stale or unappetizing,  hardcore conspiracy theorists and their closely related kin, militant lone nutists plus a garish, albeit diminishing menagerie of oddballs,  eccentrics,  goateed hobbits and angry shouty men in ill fitting red fezzes...

My biggest worry is the Prayerman footage going the same way as the Zapruder film,  ending up in the clammy hands of conspiracist zealots,  to either be sliced and diced or fed into the snapping jaws of the conspiracy meatgrinder...

To me it seems like the ultimate no brainer. Footage exists that appears to show the accused assassin standing in the shadows ( and what a poignantly beautiful and powerful metaphor) at the very time the shots were being fired. 

Footage with the potential to settle the argument ; both  distilling and synthesizing the vast  accumulation of existing exculpatory evidence. Everyone should be getting behind the drive to free the 1st generation prints. Regardless of tribe, clique or conspiratorial creed. 

The 60th anniversary may well be the very last opportunity. The last best chance to make the necessary impact,  before the case begins to slip, irrevocably out of living memory,  vanishing into the sepia tinted haze of history. 

When the legend becomes the fact; print the legend. When the lie becomes history,  print both. Safe in the knowledge that few will know the difference. 

And even fewer will care to know. While the vast majority couldn't care at all. 

Shanti Shanti Shanti 

And may Armstrong have mercy on us all

Mick_Purdy wrote:

lanceman wrote:The Ed Forum thread on “Unveiling the Limo Stop” is now over 30 pages of math that purports to show that the Z-film was altered to hide the supposed limo stop. Based on the questions it has generated, I think the original author is STILL the only one who understands his theory. I don’t want to join the forum but I did want to pose the question of how the Secret Service follow-up car managed to avoid crashing into the presidential limo. I inquired with the Ed Forum administrator whether I could join as “Guest” to ask a one time question. I was refused.

It says a lot that the Ed Forum has FAR greater difficulty with forum behavior than ROKC despite its rules for membership. And what’s up with the blurry personal photos?

No offence to anyone, but seriously, after near on sixty years they're still arguing about the limo stop. WTF!
ROKC is, as far as I can tell, one of the few sites whose sole mission is to have the case re looked at. These clowns do nothing but damage the cause. 

Within the 4 walls of some of these forums lays a sanctuary for these delusional, silly, nonsensical, BS theories. They're not serious discussions, they're not interested in moving the case forward. 

The general public's eyes glaze over when this sort of claptrap is fed to them. The good thing is this sort of stuff coming outta the Ed forum never really sees the light of day.

This 1936 photo is still being debated as to authenticity
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23marsh.html
(Note the name in the story of the exposer of photo fakery...)

This is the first faked photo 
https://www.openculture.com/2019/10/the-first-faked-photograph-1840.html

Without watching the video, I think the fakery had something to do with compositing.

greg_parker wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:

lanceman wrote:The Ed Forum thread on “Unveiling the Limo Stop” is now over 30 pages of math that purports to show that the Z-film was altered to hide the supposed limo stop. Based on the questions it has generated, I think the original author is STILL the only one who understands his theory. I don’t want to join the forum but I did want to pose the question of how the Secret Service follow-up car managed to avoid crashing into the presidential limo. I inquired with the Ed Forum administrator whether I could join as “Guest” to ask a one time question. I was refused.

It says a lot that the Ed Forum has FAR greater difficulty with forum behavior than ROKC despite its rules for membership. And what’s up with the blurry personal photos?

No offence to anyone, but seriously, after near on sixty years they're still arguing about the limo stop. WTF!
ROKC is, as far as I can tell, one of the few sites whose sole mission is to have the case re looked at. These clowns do nothing but damage the cause. 

Within the 4 walls of some of these forums lays a sanctuary for these delusional, silly, nonsensical, BS theories. They're not serious discussions, they're not interested in moving the case forward. 

The general public's eyes glaze over when this sort of claptrap is fed to them. The good thing is this sort of stuff coming outta the Ed forum never really sees the light of day.

This 1936 photo is still being debated as to authenticity
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23marsh.html
(Note the name in the story of the exposer of photo fakery...)

This is the first faked photo 
https://www.openculture.com/2019/10/the-first-faked-photograph-1840.html

Without watching the video, I think the fakery had something to do with compositing.

Yes, and there is a clear distinction between composite work done on a black & white still photograph and a standard 8mm color reversal film. It is important to recognise that distinction. The alleged composite work which is claimed to have been performed on the Zapruder color 8mm reversal film would have been extremely challenging even for highly skilled Hollywood matte paint artists. I think that is often ignored or overlooked in any alteration claim involving extremely complex composite work. 

On the other hand it is entirely possible that a black and white photograph taken in 1963 could have been manipulated in a darkroom without too much trouble.

Mick Putrdy wrote:Yes, and there is a clear distinction between composite work done on a black & white still photograph and a standard 8mm color reversal film. It is important to recognise that distinction. The alleged composite work which is claimed to have been performed on the Zapruder color 8mm reversal film would have been extremely challenging even for highly skilled Hollywood matte paint artists. I think that is often ignored or overlooked in any alteration claim involving extremely complex composite work. 

On the other hand it is entirely possible that a black and white photograph taken in 1963 could have been manipulated in a darkroom without too much trouble.

Yep. With you, mate. Just continuing the theme of historic fakes in still photos.