On Jack White's Grand Zap

[Cliff Varnell]

Jack,

I read your recent grand theory on Zapruder film alteration with interest.

I 95% don't buy it. Not for any technical/scientific reasons (not my thing),

but because I can't stand it when witnesses are turned into perps, as you've

done with Zap & Sitz.

I see witness bashing all the time in these discussions, and I've developed a

real problem with it, and I'm gonna start speaking up more about it going

forward.

What's the 5%?

Your theory would've been right up the alley of one David Atlee Phillips,

of Ft. Worth, Texas, as the master mind if not the master hand.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

Knowing who Zapruder worked for and knew, was involved with in clubs/groups before the events might change your mind further. How he acted after vis-a-vis the film even more so.....Not all of those in the Plaza were just citizen's who wanted to see JFK. Some were there for other more sinister purposes - both to kill him, to watch that those killers would make a clean get-away, to confiscate photos and films of some real ordinary well-wishers and sightseers - and perhaps a few just to watch the execution they knew about or were set-up to be there to confuse things and keep their mouths shut about covert operations peripheral to the real perps.

Let's see he worked for some clothing companies in NYC before moving to Dallas and working for Nardis and eventually started Jennifer Juniors, his own clothing company in (IIRC) 1949. As for any sinister clubs perhaps Peter would be so kind as to post evidence he belonged to any. Hopefully he can do better than that schmuck Gregory Burhman (sp?) who falsely claimed Zapruder worked "side by side" with Jeanne LeGon (then DaMorhaschildt's lover, later his wife) at Nardis when in fact he left the company years before she joined it.

[Pamela Brown]

Hopefully we in the CT community can be in agreement with the fact that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK while still being free to decide for ourselves what evidence and theory is the most persuasive. Jack White campaigns tirelessly for us to look critically, not only at the film itself, but also at those who were involved with it.

Whether Zapruder or Sitzman were knowingly involved is one area; whether there was some sort of script in place regarding the film is another. It would make sense to have *one* film of the event, ostensibly to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. Whatever the film actually showed could be *tweaked* to show what was acceptable. Is this possible?

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

[Dean Hagerman]

Hopefully we in the CT community can be in agreement with the fact that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK while still being free to decide for ourselves what evidence and theory is the most persuasive. Jack White campaigns tirelessly for us to look critically, not only at the film itself, but also at those who were involved with it.

Whether Zapruder or Sitzman were knowingly involved is one area; whether there was some sort of script in place regarding the film is another. It would make sense to have *one* film of the event, ostensibly to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. Whatever the film actually showed could be *tweaked* to show what was acceptable. Is this possible?

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

To my thinking Doug Horne has put just the final nail in the coffin of the official version of what happened to the film and gone 9x% of the way to telling us exactly what did. Elsewhere I [and others] posted both him speaking on Black Op Radio and summaries of his ideas. Read it for yourself, all, if you have not. The 'Rosetta Stone' and 'timepiece' of the events in Dallas is a fake - faked to coincide with the 'official version of events (as other pieces of evidence, testimony, etc. were also faked - for the same reason). I think, personally, at this time there is very little wiggle room for what happened to the film, but those who want to protect either the official fiction [and hide the real coup d'etat that happened and is STILL in control of the USA] or simply want to protect their past theories/work-product will invent new doubts, diversions, questions and subterfuge. Always was thus. As to the guilt of Mr. Z. It is total after that late afternoon, IMO. The question is if he was 'in' on some aspects of it before and during and [as Jack has speculated] shot a pan of the scene moments before the motorcade and during - which the spooks at Kodak and NPIC were able to meld into a fictional account we long were told was baseline data. We are in new territory, IMO. Zap film is dead as a Rosetta stone or a timepiece. That changes nothing much as to the actual events. Enough other data already told us he official version was bull. Now we have one more piece of detritus given to us with white gloves by the authorities to throw on the trash heap of history. That said, knowing HOW the Z film was tampered with does give more clues to what actually happened [and what in the official version, did not!].

NB - not to step on anyone's toes, D. Horne was not the first, by far, to question the Z-film, but I think he has laid it to rest once and for all...with garlic and a stake through the heart.

I agree with Peter 100%

Anyone who has not read Volume 4 (or for that matter all of the volumes) or is not planning on reading it is going to be left in the dust

I can not say enough times that Volume 4 validates Lifton and TGZFH authors

Buy Dougs books NOW if you have not done so

[Cliff Varnell]

I think, personally, at this time there is very little wiggle room for what happened to the film, but those who want to protect either the official fiction [and hide the real coup d'etat that happened and is STILL in control of the USA] or simply want to protect their past theories/work-product will invent new doubts, diversions, questions and subterfuge. Always was thus.

No one has given me a reason to believe that there is any significant alteration

during Z186-Z255.

Those frames show JFK seizing up paralyzed in 2 seconds, a fact which points

directly to 4 people who would have been called in for questioning had there been

a legitimate investigation: Richard Helms, Sidney Gottlieb, Charles Senseney, and

Mitchell Livingston WerBell III.

One great reason to alter the Zapruder film post Z255 -- to distract people from the

CIA-associated handiwork involved in paralyzing Kennedy.

The most salient fact of the Zapruder film isn't that it's altered.

The most salient fact of the Zap is that JFK is clearly shown to seize up paralyzed in

just over two seconds, for which we have every reason to suspect the CIA, who tested

a variety of these weapons on humans.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

I'm not casting aspersions on Jack's theory. In fact, I'm suggesting the

individual who was capable of master-minding a psy-op of this sophistication.

I am decrying the general tendency within the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps.

It's a witch hunt. I find the easy accusations of treason and murder to be

out of bounds.

Unless, of course, it turns out that Jack is right...

[Cliff Varnell]

NB - not to step on anyone's toes, D. Horne was not the first, by far, to question the Z-film, but I think he has laid it to rest once and for all...with garlic and a stake through the heart.

No, what's been laid to rest is the efficacy of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical

Research Community.

You guys are throwing the CIA baby out with the alteration bathwater.

[Jack White]

Hopefully we in the CT community can be in agreement with the fact that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK while still being free to decide for ourselves what evidence and theory is the most persuasive. Jack White campaigns tirelessly for us to look critically, not only at the film itself, but also at those who were involved with it.

Whether Zapruder or Sitzman were knowingly involved is one area; whether there was some sort of script in place regarding the film is another. It would make sense to have *one* film of the event, ostensibly to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. Whatever the film actually showed could be *tweaked* to show what was acceptable. Is this possible?

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

Thank you, Pamela. Some cannot see the obvious if it conflicts with preconceived beliefs.

The JFK event was no "ordinary" murder. It was an intelOP. Seemingly ordinary persons

were operatives. One must look beyond the obvious. For instance, does anyone still believe

that Ruth Paine was just an ordinary Irving housewife?

Same with Zapruder. IF the Zfilm is suspect, it MUST follow that Zapruder is suspect.

The evidence shows that he is MORE than just suspicious.

Jack

[Jack White]

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

I'm not casting aspersions on Jack's theory. In fact, I'm suggesting the

individual who was capable of master-minding a psy-op of this sophistication.

I am decrying the general tendency within the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps.

It's a witch hunt. I find the easy accusations of treason and murder to be

out of bounds.

Unless, of course, it turns out that Jack is right...

I hunt no witches. I go wherever the evidence leads.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Jan 8 2010, 03:36 AM) *

Knowing who Zapruder worked for and knew, was involved with in clubs/groups before the events might change your mind further.

Maybe so, Peter, maybe so...Still, it should take a lot more than guilt by

association to hang someone for murder and treason, even posthumously.

And I think we may overlook the incredible pressure put on these people.

I'm convinced that Philip Willis, Rosemary Willis, Jean Hill and Marilyn Sitzman

saw guys dressed as cops shoot JFK.

Do you realize the suicidal bravery that would have been required for them to

state this publicly in the 60's?

I think Rosemary Willis was trying to tell us exactly that in her statements

to the HSCA:

Ms. Willis...gave no information on the direction or location of the shots, but stated

that her father became upset when the policemen in the area appeared to run away

from where he thought the shots came from; that is, they were running away from

the grassy knoll.

If those cops were in hot pursuit of the shooters then Phil Willis would have

had no reason to be upset.

He was upset because guys dressed as cops shot Kennedy and ran away!

Not all of those in the Plaza were just citizen's who wanted to see JFK. Some were there for other

more sinister purposes -

There was an obvious shooter no one talks about any more.

Black Dog Man.

According to Rosemary Willis he was a "conspicuous" person who happened to

"disappear the next instant." Thanks to Don Roberdeau's excellent "Headsnap"

analysis of Ms. Willis, we know this disappearing act by BDM occurred circa Z214.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

According to the HSCA photographic panel there was a "very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of BDM's hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

Seriously, how more obvious could it be, Peter?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Hopefully we in the CT community can be in agreement with the fact that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK while still being free to decide for ourselves what evidence and theory is the most persuasive. Jack White campaigns tirelessly for us to look critically, not only at the film itself, but also at those who were involved with it.

Whether Zapruder or Sitzman were knowingly involved is one area; whether there was some sort of script in place regarding the film is another. It would make sense to have *one* film of the event, ostensibly to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. Whatever the film actually showed could be *tweaked* to show what was acceptable. Is this possible?

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

Thank you, Pamela. Some cannot see the obvious if it conflicts with preconceived beliefs.

And some cannot tell what is legitimate inquiry, and that allowing a 5%

chance for something is very good, indeed.

The JFK event was no "ordinary" murder.

Far from ordinary.

It was an intelOP. Seemingly ordinary persons were operatives.

Fine. But if you're going to fry someone for murder and treason you better

have the goods, instead of turning into a free-for-all witch hunt.

I'm here to defend witnesses, I think the perps are obvious.

One must look beyond the obvious.

Has it ever occurred to you, Jack, that the reason the Z-film was so

obviously altered was to get people to throw the whole thing out,

and distract people from the fact that it shows JFK becoming paralyzed

in two seconds -- consistent with known CIA operations?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

I'm not casting aspersions on Jack's theory. In fact, I'm suggesting the

individual who was capable of master-minding a psy-op of this sophistication.

I am decrying the general tendency within the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps.

It's a witch hunt. I find the easy accusations of treason and murder to be

out of bounds.

Unless, of course, it turns out that Jack is right...

I hunt no witches. I go wherever the evidence leads.

Jack

Fair enough, Jack. Zap Alterationists tend to be far more friendly to the witnesses

than others, and that's what I'm all about from here on out.

[Cliff Varnell]

(Phil Willis) was upset because guys dressed as cops shot Kennedy and ran away!

Which, of course, is consistent with the photo analysis of Ft. Worth researcher

Jack White.

[Jack White]

Hopefully we in the CT community can be in agreement with the fact that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK while still being free to decide for ourselves what evidence and theory is the most persuasive. Jack White campaigns tirelessly for us to look critically, not only at the film itself, but also at those who were involved with it.

Whether Zapruder or Sitzman were knowingly involved is one area; whether there was some sort of script in place regarding the film is another. It would make sense to have *one* film of the event, ostensibly to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. Whatever the film actually showed could be *tweaked* to show what was acceptable. Is this possible?

Rather than casting aspersion at this idea, why don't we use it as an hypothesis to see if it will help us define what actually did happen to the film?

Thank you, Pamela. Some cannot see the obvious if it conflicts with preconceived beliefs.

And some cannot tell what is legitimate inquiry, and that allowing a 5%

chance for something is very good, indeed.

The JFK event was no "ordinary" murder.

Far from ordinary.

It was an intelOP. Seemingly ordinary persons were operatives.

Fine. But if you're going to fry someone for murder and treason you better

have the goods, instead of turning into a free-for-all witch hunt.

I'm here to defend witnesses, I think the perps are obvious.

One must look beyond the obvious.

Has it ever occurred to you, Jack, that the reason the Z-film was so

obviously altered was to get people to throw the whole thing out,

and distract people from the fact that it shows JFK becoming paralyzed

in two seconds -- consistent with known CIA operations?

No....the Z film was created to show THE OFFICIAL STORY of the

assassination.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

If those cops were in hot pursuit of the shooters then Phil Willis would have

had no reason to be upset.

He was upset because guys dressed as cops shot Kennedy and ran away!

Check out this bit from Phil Willis' Wiki:

In 1978, when Willis's daughter Rosemary was interviewed by investigators from the House Select Committee on Assassinations, she stated to the HSCA that her father became upset when the Dallas policemen, sheriffs, and detectives—who first quickly ran onto the grassy knoll where Phillip thought the shots came from—then ran away from the grassy knoll.[

Does this characterization of Rosemary's statement hold water?

Ever see a scrum of cops suddenly break from a crime scene?

What's the first thing you think? -- they're in hot pursuit of the perps!

No one is going to be upset by the posse riding out of town.

Accusing a cop of killing Kennedy in Dallas in the 60's would have taken

unimaginable courage. At some point one would begin to doubt the

memory.