Celluloid Doppelganger: Why the Zapruder Film's Authenticity Can Be Argued

[Jack White]

The Zapruder film was NOT created to promote controversy.

It was created to provide THE OFFICIAL, CONTROLLED VERSION
OF THE ASSASSINATION, to refute any other accounts.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Jack,

My respect for you is beyond measure.

With this in mind, please try to understand that there is only one viable answer to the question, "Was the 'Zapruder film' created to promote controversy or to stand as the official, controlled version of the assassination?"

That answer is YES!

[Jack White]

Charles...the plan was to kill all controversy with the
Warren Report. They wanted NO controversy with the
SBT, LHO, autopsy, films or photos. They wanted to
get away with murder and a perfect coverup. The
coverup worked till most of the perps were safely dead.

But many years later, there IS controversy. It was not
part of the plan. The plan was to have a PERFECT CRIME
FOLLOWED BY A PERFECT COVERUP.

Thanks. I guess we disagree on what the plan was.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Indeed, we disagree.

Profoundly.

And the manner in which we do so should provide valuable lessons to so many of our brothers - and sisters-in-arms.

But it won't.

I maintain that the conspirators understood that the cover story would not be impervious to challenge. Indeed, it was not designed to hold longer than the time it took to provide the parent state with "evidence" for its official version of events. Accordingly, they designed into the plot millenia-old strategems to take full advantage of the inevitable challenges to the official fictive construct.

The best way to do so? Through the introduction and management and indeed encouragement of what novelist Eric LaValle calls the "big machine" -- doubt.

Doubt.

These masters of deceit knew then, and know now, that endless debates of what should be long-settled "questions" stand as their perfect insulation from truth and justice.

It's all about what I refer to as the production of "cognitive dissonance." Confuse perceptions. Mire in endless confusion and contradiction all who would learn the truth and effect justice.

The game is given away when we come to grips with the manners in which doppelgangers were used pre- and post-shooting. Two -- or more -- Oswalds, autopsies, brain exams, rifles, Z-films, "official" investigations ... we can go on and on ...

Why?

Because challenges to the official version were -- I'll use the word again -- inevitable. And the bastards knew it. And rather than wait passively for those challenges and then deal with them defensively, the conspirators eagerly encouraged multiplicities of contradictory evidence in order to factionalize, confuse, and render all but impotent even the most dedicated and insightful investigators.

My bottom line: The conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy was designed, executed, and subsequently protected by age-old techniques grounded in ancient arts and science.

As our mutual, dear friend George Michael Evica taught us in A Certain Arrogance, “Psychological manipulations of individuals and groups, whatever the procedure may have been called in the 18th and 19th centuries, drew upon discoveries in anatomy, mesmerism, hypnotism, counseling, studies in hysteria, rhetorical theory, psychoanalysis, advertising, behavior modification, and psychiatry. In the same periods, the literary forms of irony, satire, and comedy and the less reputable verbal arts of slander, libel, and manufactured lies were applied.”

Of course George Michael understood that these dark techniques were developed long before the 1700s.

This story is older than the crucifixion.

[Jack White]

We agree that the end result has been continual never-ending confusion.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

The Zapruder film was NOT created to promote controversy.

It was created to provide THE OFFICIAL, CONTROLLED VERSION
OF THE ASSASSINATION, to refute any other accounts.

Jack

I don't gernerally find myself in disagreement with Jack, but how could this film ever "provide the official controlled version of the assassination" with the headshot left in there, proving that this shot had to come from the front?
Indeed it was this back- and- to- the- left head motion from the Z stills that provided early critics like Vince Salandria with photographic proof that the Warren Commission account was a myth.

(Notwithstanding all the other problems presented by the Z film).

CD: your analysis is spot on.

[Jack White]

The Zapruder film was NOT created to promote controversy.

It was created to provide THE OFFICIAL, CONTROLLED VERSION
OF THE ASSASSINATION, to refute any other accounts.

Jack

I don't gernerally find myself in disagreement with Jack, but how could this film ever "provide the official controlled version of the assassination" with the headshot left in there, proving that this shot had to come from the front?
Indeed it was this back- and- to- the- left head motion from the Z stills that provided early critics like Vince Salandria with photographic proof that the Warren Commission account was a myth.

(Notwithstanding all the other problems presented by the Z film).

CD: your analysis is spot on.

Dawn: have you read HORNE IV or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX?

Jack

[Peter Lemkin]

Just as they had multiple shooters, spotters, communication and get-away means/persons/vehicles - they must, IMO, have had more than old Mr. Z to rely on...what if his camera jammed or the film developing didn't work, etc. There must have been another camera or cameras. I think they had an original plan of how to deal with 'the movie' as the official event, but had to change it [as well as the autopsy events] as the events called for. Where I think Charles is spot on is in their teasing and laughing at us all these years arguing and questioning things, when most of it was all faked. People looking to match one fake against another or one fake against a real photo or witness statement.....and they still serve-up defenders of the fake(s) as holy grail - a few are just fools - some are witting. Quite a goon show when looked at from the average American or World Citizen's viewpoint. That was the purpose. Salandria was correct. Wheels within wheels within wheels. I say we declare victory [as we HAVE solved the case] and move on to DOING something about it!!!!

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Many who have studied the Z-film longer than I seem to have concluded it is a fruitless path, that is an endless circle by design.

I cannot agree one way or the other yet, because until now I have lacked an entry-ramp into the vitriol that is the Z-film debate. It is telling, perhaps that It has been so difficult for me to grasp the stuff, given that I am been reading about the assassination for about six years now.(although very far from full time). Yet I find Doug Hornes book just such an entry ramp. I have to say however that commentary with the weight of Brugioni, combined with the comments of the extremely cautious, almost anti-conspiratorial Jeremy Gunn who served as Horne's boss on the ARRB, make the z-film section extremely provocative. Those who dismiss it based on a'priori assumtions about the fruitlessness of following a path that is more fork than road, are missing out on some amazing comments, which just might prove bunker busters.

Where I think Charles is most correct is in his general point that the assassins planned future forks in future roads at least as much as bullet trajectories, and that such a conclusion is almost impossible to avoid, the more one looks at other areas of the case. How else, for example do we explain Nixon and Bush in Dallas, with the former called in -- if we agree with Russ Baker-- late in the game at the behest of Kendal who knew far earlier? How else do we explain the seeding of conflicting LBJ narratives before the event itself? I agree with Charles general point that the fragmentation of competing explanations to the coverup was planned well before a shot was fired ( if this is, in fact his point). That in itself is also worth thinking about for anyone going on the Z-film "treadmill?" for the first time. But still I think one has to decide for themselves.

[Bruce Clemens]

Jack,

I feel privileged to be able to participate in a forum such as this which hosts first-generation researchers to the events of 11/22/63. As such, you are a great asset to this forum. Reading things here, plebes like me are getting a Master's level course in the real-world from generous people like you.

You and Charles Drago have been posting entries in this thread about the JFK murder that are way, way beyond what we get in books we can order from Amazon. To me it's like investment bankers arguing the nuances of derivatives of derivatives. It is becoming way beyond complicated. I just spent a whole evening noodling on your fine video about how the Zapruder film was faked...What a mind-blower.

And then, on the Education Forum, I saw a posting where you say the Moon landing is a hoax.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=15319

You are a respected photo interpreter, and the points you made and the research you did on the Zapruder film is incredibly convincing. Because of that, this is the first time in my life that I am giving any credence to any claim that the Moon landing might indeed be faked.

Can you point me to a set of evidence similar to your work on the film in Dealey Plaza that shows Neil Armstrong was actually in a studio?

I would very much appreciate the help.

Best,
Bruce