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

[Charles Drago]

The Zapruder Film was created to provoke argument -- and a whole lot more -- regarding its authenticity.

Witness the debilitating hostility and intellectual/emotional decay in evidence within our best-and brightest's commentary on the Z-film since publication of Doug Horne's five volumes -- hell, since its earliest "unofficial" viewings.

The killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy are on the floor, kicking their legs with glee.

Burn every copy of the Z-film, and then pretend it never existed.

Do you care to guess what we're left with?

Don't bother. I'll tell you.

Anyone with reasonable access to the rest of the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

We learn nothing.

[Adrian Mack]

We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

- Vincent Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

[Phil Dragoo]

Adrian cites the passage Charles' comment immediately elicited, from page 52.

Fonzi returns to Salandria on 404:

There are those, such as Vincent Salandria, who contend that studying Kennedy's assassination has to go beyond microanalysis of the evidence because the evidence so early and clearly shouted conspiracy. What's needed now, Salandria says, is what he calls a model of explanation that
would fit both the rationale for a blatant conspiracy as well as its aftermath. And Salandria sees as part of that aftermath the domestic turmoil of the Sixties as well as the militarization of foreign policy that produced both the tragedy of Vietnam and, in the decades that followed, the arrogant, worldwide proliferation of illegal covert operations by the intelligence agencies. Salandria believes that for a conspiracy to fit that model of explanation, it must incorporate "forces positioned in the highest echelons of the Federal Government."

The film of Abraham Zapruder et al is not the moon, and may not even be the finger pointing at the moon. It may be those attorneys in the second floor windows of Justice at the Nixon Counterinnaugural January 19, 1969, giving us the finger and mooning us.

Coup, coup, ca-chew.

Yes, and it appears more and more likely that the film was altered to conceal that which we know to have occurred.

And it is another golden apple dropped by the Dianagangers who did the deed.

[Charles Drago]

The Z-film would have been altered and leaked even if A) its official provenance were accurate in all respects, and B) it offered not a scintilla of evidence to contradict the official version of events.

As has been noted by novelist Victor Lavalle, doubt is the big machine.

[Jack White]

The Zapruder Film was created to provoke argument -- and a whole lot more -- regarding its authenticity.

Witness the debilitating hostility and intellectual/emotional decay in evidence within our best-and brightest's commentary on the Z-film since publication of Doug Horne's five volumes -- hell, since its earliest "unofficial" viewings.

The killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy are on the floor, kicking their legs with glee.

Burn every copy of the Z-film, and then pretend it never existed.

Do you care to guess what we're left with?

Don't bother. I'll tell you.

Anyone with reasonable access to the rest of the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

We learn nothing.

Charles...I must disagree.

The alleged Zapruder film was CREATED TO BE THE OFFICIAL RECORD
OF THE ASSASSINATION, which would counteract all other photos,
evidence and witnesses. In other words, if something is not in the
OFFICIAL, CONTROLLED, SANCTIONED FILM, it did not happen. That
is why the film was not taken by Zapruder (just a stooge) and was
altered to fit the desired scenario.

The Z film is CENTRAL to the coverup. It FOOLED most people for
45 years. Its importance is paramount. It "proves" that the official
story is true.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Jack,

I don't think that we're at cross-purposes here.

As Bud Fensterwald taught, all intel ops have at least two objectives.

The Z-film -- its creation and utilization -- amounts to an intel op.

It does indeed serve as "documentation" of the official version.

It is indeed intentionally flawed so as to promote dissension, mistrust, and misdirection.

Charles

[Jack White]

Jack,

I don't think that we're at cross-purposes here.

As Bud Fensterwald taught, all intel ops have at least two objectives.

The Z-film -- its creation and utilization -- amounts to an intel op.

It does indeed serve as "documentation" of the official version.

It is indeed intentionally flawed so as to promote dissension, mistrust, and misdirection.

Charles

It was not intentionally flawed. It had to BE GOOD ENOUGH
TO FOOL EVERYONE that needed to be fooled for as long as
they needed to be fooled. Indeed, there are still skilled
researchers who ardently believe the film is genuine and
they rely on it for many aspects of what happened. It is
of course, FLAWED IN MANY WAYS, but not intentionally.

Thanks for your opinion.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

And thanks for yours.

The creation and maintenance of what Mr. Salandria referred to as "microanalysis" of the event is a key element in the cover-up.

Evidence in this case was, in many but hardly all instances, made fraudulent by design and with the expectation of discovery.

It is the imprimatur of the state -- nothing else -- that keeps the "argument" alive.

Absent said sanction, the Z-film would be accepted as incontrovertible evidence for conspiracy by everyone of good intention who has viewed it.

It is just one in a long line of doppelganger gambits.

[Dawn Meredith]

The Zapruder Film was created to provoke argument -- and a whole lot more -- regarding its authenticity.

Witness the debilitating hostility and intellectual/emotional decay in evidence within our best-and brightest's commentary on the Z-film since publication of Doug Horne's five volumes -- hell, since its earliest "unofficial" viewings.

The killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy are on the floor, kicking their legs with glee.

Burn every copy of the Z-film, and then pretend it never existed.

Do you care to guess what we're left with?

Don't bother. I'll tell you.

Anyone with reasonable access to the rest of the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

We learn nothing.

It's certainly taking up a lot of space at the other forum. Which proves your point , doesn't it?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

It's worth keeping in mind the role of C.D. Jackson and his background in Psy-Ops. Could the purpose of the Z-film been other than its use as hard evidence? Could that role have been to divide the opposition to the coverup narrative, REGARDLESS of how it was used by those arguing conspiracy?

Is the Z-film PURE psy-op, or is such a thing impossible?

Conspiracy, in my view, is not contingent on either interpretation. But does that logically mean that we should give up trying to solve this debate if there is compelling new interviews from people of the stature of Dino Brugioni?

I am finding the books Douglas Horne very useful and not just on the question of the Z-film. It is a great historical overview of all of the medical evidence, with lots of new additions.