Has anyone watched the Netflix series American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders?

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

The Z film part is ridiculous. Once again, CTers are trying to cover up the truth in the JFK assassination. 

What truth Denis? Don't be shy here..

[James DiEugenio]

That part is not ridiculous at all.  

As you will see in part 3, Robert Booth Nichols had perfected this idea of a fake Z film as part of his con of Sam Israel, which the film does not go into.  I don't know why.  The deposition that the film shows is about that issue. But the film makers are not specific about it.

BTW, I am up to almost 2000 views of that part 2.  Whew.

I will probably post Part 3 tonight.

Edited March 21 by James DiEugenio

[Brian Kelly]

For that scene the female journalist explained it all in the doc (I thought in a clear and plausible way). She was describing the conversation she had with this character Nichols and how he showed her diff versions of the Zapruder film for some reason. I believe she thought both versions were manipulated by this guy Nichols if I remember correctly. Basically Nichols was trying to pull something on her either to cover his ass later, or to test her, or for some other reason born of his self-interest.

I never took from that scene that the journalist was claiming there were real doctored versions of the Z film being screened for her, or that the documentary was implying that different versions of the Z film are out there and that spooks can check them out of the Blockbuster spy library in the basement of the CIA. Just that this guy Nichols was pulling a fast one on the journalist and he manipulated the whole situation. And she apparently navigated it pretty well. 

[James DiEugenio]

Here is Part 3 of my review.  It is here where I explain why that scene about Zapruder is much more important than the film or that witness lets on.  

And it is hard to understand how the writer and director did not know about it.

My substack is still free.  

https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/p/american-conspiracy-the-octopus-murders-c4d

[Denis Morissette]

20 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

What truth Denis? Don't be shy here..

Most CT propagandists dirty the waters so people don’t believe but that’s he’s a LNer. 

[James DiEugenio]

My concluding installment on American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders.

I mean did any reviewer do any homework on this thing?  Anyway, they cannot even prove that Casolaro did not take his own life.  And they left out a ton of evidence that says he did.

Anyway you will not see any review like this out there, not even close.I went through 500 pages of documents, which they want you to ignore.

https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/p/american-conspiracy-pt-4-the-octopus

 

[Stu Wexler]

Good job on this, Jim. Re: fact checkers.  While folks like you a me would welcome a final episode that hashed out the debunking, I am not sure that is in the financial interest of Netflix to do so. Better to have the more sensationalist offering. If I gave them the benefit of the doubt, it is what I said earlier. People just do not understand the lengths some people will go to grift using or insert themselves into a famous crime or historical case. JFK is an extreme example. But it happened with the Black Dahlia case. I bet it happened with the Jack the Ripper case. And it can even involve multiple people.

Stu

[James DiEugenio]

I agree that there will not be a concluding episode to hash out the other side of things.

Netflix simply would not do something like that.

Too much at stake I think for them.  But the two guys who made this series should really be called out.

That will not happen.  Except for here.

I mean to make Riconosciuto a main talking head?

[James DiEugenio]

Stu:

Treitz and Hansen turned down an opportunity to debate me.

Kind of telling I think.

What interested me is how they dismissed any of the following investigations into the INSLAW case.

So I read them, plus some other stuff.  I just conclude that their whole approach is flawed.  To leave out the later investigations is just not being candid with the viewer. 

That Netflix let it all slide is another question.

[Calvin Ye]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Stu:

Treitz and Hansen turned down an opportunity to debate me.

Kind of telling I think.

What interested me is how they dismissed any of the following investigations into the INSLAW case.

So I read them, plus some other stuff.  I just conclude that their whole approach is flawed.  To leave out the later investigations is just not being candid with the viewer. 

That Netflix let it all slide is another question.

James,

Covertactionmagazine.com accuses Netflix of continuing the coverup

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/03/11/netflix-series-on-the-octopus-murders-continues-cover-up-of-reporters-death-and-cia-crimes-he-threatened-to-expose/

[James DiEugenio]

I saw this and I disagree.

Any show that makes Michael Riconosciuto a lead witness and does not reveal all the details about Casolaro's death  or the fact that INSLAW was in breach of contract, that show is quite problematic. 

Riconosciuto is a spinner and that is understating it I think.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:21 AM, John Deignan said:

Jim,

It is a combo of documentary and acted out scenes. Don’t expect too much from the Zapruder film scene. It has to do with Greer shooting Kennedy. 

This scene has been commonly misunderstood by viewers and commentators alike as implying that the original Zapruder film depicts Secret Service Agent William Greer (the driver of the Presidential limo) shooting President Kennedy, when in fact, the lesson of this scene is that intelligence operatives use altered documents and artifacts (such as the Zapruder film) to plant a barium pill which will discredit researchers. So, for example, if this journalist had claimed that she had been shown the original Zapruder film and that it had depicted Greer shooting the President, then she and all of her other work would be discredited. But she was too smart for that and was on to the intelligence operative from the start...

 

[Denis Morissette]

Sounds like she saw William Cooper’s muddy B&W Zapruder film version.

[Gil Jesus]

I was very disappointed for a couple of reasons when I saw the part in Episode 3 where they claim the extant Zapruder-film has been altered.

#1 The female reporter claims to have been shown a version of the film where the driver shoots the President. In this film, she describes her host slowing it down and demonstrates how "the bullet comes out of the gun this slow". 

Those of us who have done the calculations on bullet speed and Zapruder frames know that this is not possible.

Only a high speed camera can film a bullet in flight. Zapruder's camera at 18.3/fps simply was not fast enough. The film she was being shown was obviously an altered film, a fake.

#2 She was told that the bootleg Groden version, the version that the public has seen, is an altered film and the proof is that in that version there is a tree in mid-air.

I had never seen this before and found this interesting so I went back to my copy of the Zapruder film and it shows the tree intact.

Upon closer look, the so-called "floating tree" version is the obvious fake, because the shadow of the tree trunk is visible where no trunk is apparent.

If they had said that the "floating tree" version was the original and that some anomaly in the camera caused the tree to appear to have no trunk, they might have had me, because I had gone over the Z-film a hundred times and had never seen that version before.

But to say that the "floating tree version" is the bootlegged public version shown by Bob Groden in 1975 is not true. This is a frame from Groden's 1975 "Goodnight America" presentation showing the tree trunk intact.

And to suggest that Zapruder's camera was fast enough to pick up a bullet in flight and film it in several frames is not true as well.

I believe the reporter saw what she said she saw. To her credit, she was skeptical. But I'm disappointed that the producers didn't call out the "floating tree" film and "the bullet travelling through the air" film as fakes. 

The version shown to the reporter of the driver shooting the President and the bullet travelling through the air IMO, is an obvious fake. As is the version with the "floating tree".

Yes, what the reporter was shown were two fakes, one presented as the "original" with the driver shooting the President and the "bullet travelling through the air", and the other presented as the altered public version with the tree trunk missing. 

Speaking of fake versions of the Zapruder film, the revelation that there ARE altered versions out there may serve the CIA's purpose very well in the long run. The more fakes out there, the easier it would be for the Agency and its allies to reject a copy of the original film as a fake should one ever surface.

 

Edited April 17 by Gil Jesus

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I was very disappointed for a couple of reasons when I saw the part in Episode 3 where they claim the extant Zapruder-film has been altered.

#1 The female reporter claims to have been shown a version of the film where the driver shoots the President. In this film, she describes her host slowing it down and demonstrates how "the bullet comes out of the gun this slow". 

Those of us who have done the calculations on bullet speed and Zapruder frames know that this is not possible.

Only a high speed camera can film a bullet in flight. Zapruder's camera at 18.3/fps simply was not fast enough. The film she was being shown was obviously an altered film, a fake.

#2 She was told that the bootleg Groden version, the version that the public has seen, is an altered film and the proof is that in that version there is a tree in mid-air.

I had never seen this before and found this interesting so I went back to my copy of the Zapruder film and it shows the tree intact.

Upon closer look, the so-called "floating tree" version is the obvious fake, because the shadow of the tree trunk is visible where no trunk is apparent.

If they had said that the "floating tree" version was the original and that some anomaly in the camera caused the tree to appear to have no trunk, they might have had me, because I had gone over the Z-film a hundred times and had never seen that version before.

But to say that the "floating tree version" is the bootlegged public version shown by Bob Groden in 1975 is not true. This is a frame from Groden's 1975 "Goodnight America" presentation showing the tree trunk intact.

And to suggest that Zapruder's camera was fast enough to pick up a bullet in flight and film it in several frames is not true as well.

I believe the reporter saw what she said she saw. To her credit, she was skeptical. But I'm disappointed that the producers didn't call out the "floating tree" film and "the bullet travelling through the air" film as fakes. 

The version shown to the reporter of the driver shooting the President and the bullet travelling through the air IMO, is an obvious fake. As is the version with the "floating tree".

Yes, what the reporter was shown were two fakes, one presented as the "original" with the driver shooting the President and the "bullet travelling through the air", and the other presented as the altered public version with the tree trunk missing. 

Speaking of fake versions of the Zapruder film, the revelation that there ARE altered versions out there may serve the CIA's purpose very well in the long run. The more fakes out there, the easier it would be for the Agency and its allies to reject a copy of the original film as a fake should one ever surface.

 

In my opinion, the segment of the film does explain that the versions of the Zapruder film presented to the journalist by Robert Booth Nichols are altered versions intended to serve as a barium meal (or poison pill), but I have found in sharing the segment on this thread and on Facebook that even with my prefatory cautionary commentary it still confuses even seasoned JFKA researchers, so perhaps, as you suggest, the producer should have done a better job explaining what the journalist explains (that the films the journalist was shown were fakes used by Robert Booth Nichols in an attempt to discredit her were she to believe the films were legitimate and include such details in her report).

The following is the cautionary comment I have prefaced it with when sharing it, followed by the video of the segment from the film:

"This scene has been commonly misunderstood by viewers and commentators alike as implying that the original Zapruder film depicts Secret Service Agent William Greer (the driver of the Presidential limo) shooting President Kennedy, when in fact, the lesson of this scene is that intelligence operatives use altered documents and artifacts (such as the Zapruder film) to plant a barium pill which will discredit researchers. So, for example, if this journalist had claimed that she had been shown the original Zapruder film and that it had depicted Greer shooting the President, then she and all of her other work would be discredited. But she was too smart for that and was on to the intelligence operative from the start..."

Edited April 17 by Keven Hofeling