Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton -- Final Charade

Recommended Posts

So many covert copies of some form of the Z film seemed to be in circulation back

then, I do not find it incredible at all that Pamela may have seen one of the bootleg

copies shown by some enterprising movie house UNTIL authorities found out and

put a stop to it. I do not believe Pamela would LIE about the event; what is

questionable is exactly what version of what film she saw, and why it did not make

big news at the time. I imagine the Z film would have caused a sensation!

Re Judyth, MANY intelligent researchers have been taken in by her story. Pamela

has good company, since my long time friend Jim Marrs also believes Judyth.

However, I would make this observation: EVERY researcher who believes her story

HAS HAD PERSONAL INTERACTION WITH HER at some level. There must be something

very persuasive about talking to her in person, because IN WRITING, her story comes

across as phony as a $6 bill. I prefer to side with the late Mary Ferrell, who probably

investigated her more vigorously than anyone, and found her story fraudulent.


When I viewed the Zapruder I had no idea how rare an event it would end up being. A friend of mine had seen a small ad in one of the tabloid-style NYC papers (not the NYT) and brought it to my attention. I don't recall if it was scheduled for more than one evening, and don't know if it ran for more than one evening. I was there the first night, we were among the first in line, and sat in the front row. It seems whomever did this managed to slide it under the radar, at least once.

I am working to gain more definition on which or whose copy it was that I saw. Although I did not at the time connect Mark Lane to the event, it did seem logical that he might have been involved. However, per Kelin's book, Lane was in LA at that time doing debates with Belli.

As far as Judyth is concerned, I manage to keep an open mind. She seems to know some things that are remarkable, and there are other areas that are almost impossible to corroborate. Also, she seemed not to realize that what she experienced herself was at one level; what she was told, at another. She has muddied the waters somewhat also by trying to be witness and researcher. Hers is a complex situation; yet her tenacity despite the libel, ridicule, and all the dirty tricks, is quite remarkable. I don't think Lee Oswald has a more dedicated champion than Judyth. That speaks volumes to me too.

IF Judyth was acquainted with Oswald in New Orleans, it was HARVEY, who was on assignment from the CIA.

It was NOT Lee.

It was Harvey killed by Ruby, not Lee.

When Judyth was on forums, I asked her which LHO she knew. She became very abusive when it was suggested

to her that there were two Oswalds. When told that Harvey's time was accounted for at times she claimed to be

with him, she made wild paranoid accusations. Rich DellaRosa banned her from his forum for abusive behavior.

She NEVER offered a single piece of supporting evidence to back her imaginative stories. John Armstrong, who

knows every LHO document by memory, can cite dozens of holes in her tales.


What you seem to be saying is if you believe there are two Oswalds, Judyth cannot be for real. One difficulty that can occur is when a researcher puts themself at the same level as a witness and tries to force a round peg into a square hole. Her statements belong to her, and it is up to the rest of us to weigh and evaluate them and decide for ourselves what is credible. It's ok by me that she has not won you over.

It seems that some of those who have gone out of their way to try to destroy Judyth (not necessarily Armstrong or RDR) have an agenda of trying to keep Marina protected. It is as though the WCR was developed around Marina and would crumble if Judyth were added into the equation. I may be mistaken, but that is my impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that is a really dumb statement. Few researchers I know have an "agenda"...especially one

to "protect Marina". My only agenda is truth. As for Marina, she appears to have been some sort

of Russian asset used in connection with the LHO defection...but after the assassination, they

cut her loose to fend for herself in the US. If she would "come clean" she could advance the

truth significantly.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...
On 1/3/2010 at 3:47 AM, Paul Rigby said:

1. Wolper produced 32 episodes of the 1954 series OSS: it is inconceivable that the CIA did not take a keen interest in the shaping of the series, not least because of the presence of so many ex-OSS in its own ranks, among them, the most senior.

2. The Wolper documentary Four Days in November, released in October 1964, was made in conjunction with UPI, and debuted just as UPI completed its takeover of Wolper's production company and its (five?) subsidiaries.

3. Four Days is perhaps most remarkable for what it omits - any footage of the presidential limousine turning the corner from Houston on Elm:

4. The absence of any footage of said turn is more than a little curious because according to a UPI despatch from New York in the early hours of Tuesday, November 26, 1963, it had footage of precisely that turn:

My conclusion from the above?

Rather to my surprise, I find Pamela's recollection entirely credible, for this additional reason: The version of the Zapruder fake which, unannounced, followed Wolper's cynical piece of pro-WC hackwork was almost certainly the second version, the one which had removed the left turn from Houston on to Elm. What I suspect she was subjected to was a small scale experiment in perception management, as part of the preparation for introducing the new, improved version of the Zapruder fake.


DATE: April 9, 2017 - 12:20 a.m. PDT - Los Angeles, California

RE: Much Delayed Response to the above post by Paul Rigby (just read today)

FWIW:  I think this represents interesting research, but it also has an innocent explanation.

(And those who know me know the ordinary response I have to those on the other side of the JFK debate who seem to ceaselessly invent "innocent explanations" for evidence suggesting conspiracy.  Pat Valentino calls them paid "excuse makers"; and I certainly am not one of them; but I do believe there is an innocent explanation for the UPI dispatch cited previously on this thread.)

My belief: that this particular dispatch is nothing more than careless writing and research done by a UPI reporter who, confronted with the release of a piece of the Nix film (in connection with Wolper's release of FOUR DAYS, or some equivalent media event), conflated a description of what is shown in the Zapruder film (according to a file copy of another story, read on. . . ) with a dispatch that is referring to the Nix film.

First, let's identify the reporter involved, and the full title of this particular news item.  From the dispatch(es) and excerpts quoted above, the "journalist-of-record" is: "Marlyn E. Aycock (UPI)" and her story ran under the headline: "JFK Assassination Film Holds Guests Spellbound, Kingsport News (Tennessee), 8 October 1964, p.19"  I think her identification is important, because it is fair to ask: was she ever  questioned on her remarkable dispatch?  (Not that I know of.)

Second: the actual words used in the dispatch to describe what the film showed are suspiciously close, if not almost identical, to the wire-service accounts put out around November 28th, 1963, to describe the Zapruder film, and those wire service accounts came, as I recall, from the Secret Service.

So what I think happened is that Ms. Aycock, the author of this particular UPI account, went to some file in the newspaper morgue, retrieved some copy describing the Z film from November 28th (plus or minus a day), 1963, and included those sentences in her story. 

Yes, I think its that simple.

Another point to keep in mind: film format.  To project a film on the usual equipment at a New York City theater, the normal projector is 35 mm. So the film is (almost always) in 35 mm format.  Now please note: the conversion of the Zapruder film from the 8mm copy (held by LIFE) to a full 35 mm format was not accomplished until around 1967, when Moe Weitzman did that work on a contract for LIFE Magazine.  As described in Pig on a Leash, I viewed that remarkable material in June 1970 at the Beverly Hills office of Time-Life.  So, purely as a practical matter, anyone who advocates that the Z film was shown at a New York City theater would have to explain how they could project a 35mm copy of the Z film, by their projectionist, when no such film, in that format--I repeat, in that format--was made until Weitzman did the work for LIFE, in 1967.

So.  . . : All things considered, and aside from the fact that --personally--I don't believe that the Zapruder film was shown at the Bleeker Street Cinema in 1964, I want to (again) point out the sheer implausibility of such an alleged event.  Specifically: that if any such event had occurred, it would have caused a sensation both at the offices of LIFE magazine, at Rockefeller Center, and at the headquarters of the U.S. Secret Service in Washington.  Really: from the standpoint of LIFE executives, and top Secret Service officials, this would have been the ultimate "WTF?!" moment.   It is the stuff of a Peter Sellers movie.  Again, it would not have been physically possible without a 35 mm copy (and, as far as I know, there was no such copy in 1964), but even if one skips over that problem (and it is a huge problem), and then postulates--using the word "somehow"--that "somehow" such an event occurred, it would not only have caused a sensation in the two aforementioned organizations, with SS agents descending on the Bleeker Street Cinema and demanding to know "Where the hell did you get that copy that you projected?" etc., but the news generated by such an event would have been all over the media. Just consider the headlines it would have spawned:  "SECRET ASSASSINATION FILM--AVAILABLE ONLY TO FBI AND WARREN COMMISSION--ACCIDENTALLY PROJECTED AT NEW YORK CITY THEATER."  And I can just imagine the lead paragraph to such a story, not to mention the paragraphs which followed. 

Honestly, it is so outrageous, and improbable --and I am not unsympathetic to the UFO phenomenon, and all matters of planetary science--but it is so utterly improbable, much less implausible, that it would be akin to the landing of an alien craft in Rockaway Beach, and for such an event to have been witnessed by 100 people (I am conservatively estimating the audience size at the Bleeker Street Cinema), and for the event to have left no media footprint.

(Except, of course,  for the single JFK researcher, who is normally quite careful, and who claims to have witnessed such an event at the Bleeker Street Cinema in New York City, when she went to the movies one day (or evening) and saw such an extraordinary cinematic event.)

Also, and I add this in the spirit of a footnote, why is it that the two newspapers cited to document this supposed event are the "Kingsport News (Tennessee)" and the "The Valley Independent, (Monessen, Pennsylvania)."  Really??  What happened to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Atlanta?  (And what about Dallas?) So perhaps this was simply an incorrect dispatch that was "killed" by the wire service, but somehow got published in these small town newspapers.

In writing the above, please do keep in mind that I am one who believes that the Zapruder film (and other civilian films of the shooting) were altered; and have additional significant information about all of that which I have obtained since the publication of Pig on a Leash. But no, I do not believe the Zapruder film was "accidentally" projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964.


4/9/17 - 1 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California


Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Bleecker Street Cinema have only 35mm projection?  Doesn't seem like the NYC art house circuit I remember, which showed films from a variety of worldwide distributors, private collections, and independent filmmakers.  Not all of that was available in 35mm, including privately owned 16mm prints of some rare Hollywood films.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...