Charles Drago Wrote:So of course the question becomes, "Why were the films shown to you?"

I would suggest this answer: "To foster doubt, to create conflict, and to deflect attention."

For starters.

Greg Burnham Wrote:As you may or may not already know, it appears possible that Rich, William, Milicent Craynor, Scott Myers, and I all saw the same film and it was not shot by Zapruder, but from a similar position. However, we could all have seen different films or all seen a few films--or--maybe, it was an un-altered version of the Zappy cartoon. The latter I do not see as likely...

Greg Burnham Wrote:I think that is generally correct. As you may or may not already know, it appears possible that Rich, William, Milicent Craynor, Scott Myers, and I all saw the same film and it was not shot by Zapruder, but from a similar position. However, we could all have seen different films or all seen a few films--or--maybe, it was an un-altered version of the Zappy cartoon. The latter I do not see as likely...

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:So of course the question becomes, "Why were the films shown to you?"

I would suggest this answer: "To foster doubt, to create conflict, and to deflect attention."

For starters.

I would add another question: "Would the Sponsors have commissioned their own film of the public execution of the American President?"

If so, why?

To be able to relive, to "celebrate", their Power - as some sort of ultimate Trophy film - in oak-panelled rooms, whilst slowly imbibing cognac?

Or to be shown to select researchers as per Charles' formulation of fostering doubt, creating conflict and deflecting attention?

Or to be channelled to the public at some future date, for unknown reasons which might include the reinfliction of mass trauma on the audience, the demonstration that Power can tell you what to believe, or more prosaically as leverage of some sort against one of the players?

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:So of course the question becomes, "Why were the films shown to you?"

I would suggest this answer: "To foster doubt, to create conflict, and to deflect attention."

For starters.

I would add another question: "Would the Sponsors have commissioned their own film of the public execution of the American President?"

If so, why?

To be able to relive, to "celebrate", their Power - as some sort of ultimate Trophy film - in oak-panelled rooms, whilst slowly imbibing cognac?

Or to be shown to select researchers as per Charles' formulation of fostering doubt, creating conflict and deflecting attention?

Or to be channelled to the public at some future date, for unknown reasons which might include the reinfliction of mass trauma on the audience, the demonstration that Power can tell you what to believe, or more prosaically as leverage of some sort against one of the players?

Yes.

There also are stories about an unaltered JFK snuff flick being used for training purposes in the U.S. and Israel.

For starters.

Charles Drago Wrote:There also are stories about an unaltered JFK snuff flick being used for training purposes in the U.S. and Israel.

For starters.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:There also are stories about an unaltered JFK snuff flick being used for training purposes in the U.S. and Israel.

For starters.

I have heard some of those rumours.

A sniper training use of such a film feels to me mundane. A use that the Sponsors of the assassination would somehow regard as base and irreverent.

If the Sponsors owned such a film, I sense that they would regard it as more of a magical artefact, a resonant creation that they would treasure and use for its power to shock and traumatize.

Before Zapruder was made public, The Secret Film would have the power to create Trauma in any individual viewing it.

After Zapruder was made public, viewing of the The Secret Film would serve to create Fear, Doubt, Frustration, Anger - and provide proof that the world is not as we are told it is.

The perfect psyop aims to create Mass Psychosis and Paranoia.