Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is the *ANTI* altered film/photo crowd...


Recommended Posts

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up.

I will probably end up buying Bugliosi's book and studying it in detail. As far as the Z-film being altered and Luce being part of some conspiracy etc., I seem to remember that it was Life Magazine, FROM its study of the Z-film, that first called for a new investigation. In November 1966.

Now why would they do that if the film had been altered to hide a conspiracy? Well, maybe because the film shows Kennedy and Connally react seconds apart, and raises great doubt they were hit by the same shot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I still don't get, if the Z film was altered, is what was taken out, and why in the world they left in what is still there - the separate reactions of JFK and Connally, the head snap, the back spatter of a frontal shot. What was more important that had to be removed? DCM firing a pistol (the raised hand is fakery)? Getting two women out of the street? Connally shooting JFK before getting shot himself? (Remember, shooters are always eliminated within the week.)

Wait, I know, the limo stopping! Couldn't have that. Well, if Greer slowed down, or failed to speed up, presumably because he didn't know what to do (fear of ambush ahead, etc.), then it makes just as much sense that he would stop momentarily. So why all the fuss to keep that limo moving, however slowly?

Aside from the technical problems, the question is what was conceivably accomplished by alteration. There is nothing from eyewitness testimony, as far as I can recall, that indicates something happening of vital significance that is not in the Z film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Not to mention the fact that every other piece of film shot that day, still and motion, would have to be tracked down and similarly altered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I still don't get, if the Z film was altered, is what was taken out, and why in the world they left in what is still there - the separate reactions of JFK and Connally, the head snap, the back spatter of a frontal shot. What was more important that had to be removed? DCM firing a pistol (the raised hand is fakery)? Getting two women out of the street? Connally shooting JFK before getting shot himself? (Remember, shooters are always eliminated within the week.)

Wait, I know, the limo stopping! Couldn't have that. Well, if Greer slowed down, or failed to speed up, presumably because he didn't know what to do (fear of ambush ahead, etc.), then it makes just as much sense that he would stop momentarily. So why all the fuss to keep that limo moving, however slowly?

Aside from the technical problems, the question is what was conceivably accomplished by alteration. There is nothing from eyewitness testimony, as far as I can recall, that indicates something happening of vital significance that is not in the Z film.

Ron,

I couldn't agree with you more!!!!

I have puzzled over this...it would seem to me that if there was a need to alter, it would be done to substantiate the SBT .--as you say " the spatter of a frontal shot.'" This is exactly what I would have done, if I wanted to cover up anything.

Then of course, I'd have to alter the Nix film to correspond...... And if I altered both, and it could be proven that they were altered, what are we left with?? The photos may contain something, and even their authenticity is questioned by some. Which leads me to wonder, what would we really have, if this is true?

No, I don't believe that the Zfilm was altered, either. It just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another possibility:

The Z-film has been manipulated brilliantly and with devastating impact as a generator of what I've termed "cognitive dissonance" within the investigative and so-called critical communities. It is one of the paralyzing darts fired into our collective system on Day One.

I submit that it was created to do just that. And more.

I submit that there is no more effective way of covering up the true story than by providing evidence supporting any number of "true" stories. Thus the Z-film may have been altered in ways both subtle and overt, the former yet to be discerned, the latter designed to be discovered and debated ad infinitum.

I submit that the conspiracy was conceived and produced as a drama, with main and supporting (always more interesting: Ruby as Falstaff? Angel and Leopoldo as Rosencrantz and Guidenstern?) characters, sub plots galore, and dramas-within-dramas. The Z-film falls into the latter category ... or perhaps it's our tale's dream sequence.

(This is why "JFK" was so effective an instrument of counter-propaganda: It is high drama, aimed more at the viscera than at the intellect.)

Can I prove any of this? Only indirectly.

I submit the obvious: that the strategic goal of the cover-up was to prolong the howdunit aspect of official and civilian investigations. This task was daunting, given that a multi-assassin ambush would be obvious to all present as it took place and to all who had access to the best evidence (in the Lifton sense) in its immediate aftermath. The most important tactical means to achieve that goal were the production and timed releases of materials crafted to support both main points of view simultaneously.

The Z-film has created significant rifts in the critical community. The public debate over its authenticity has prompted countless opportunities to heap derision on alterationists -- and, by extension, all advocates of the conspiratorial truth. It has helped keep the focus on seemingly endless, repetitive efforts to resolve the long-answered howdunit question, and in so doing insulated the conspirators from serious threats of retribution that would be the products of a subsequent whodunit focus.

We are engaged in a war for historical truth. The Posners and Bugliosis and McAdams and Rahns are tasked with providing intellectual and academic bona fides for the great lie, and thus insuring that a majority of historians will conclude that pro- and anti-conspiracy forces engage on a level playing field.

I submit that the keys to our ultimate success remain as follows:

For the public at large,

1. We must constantly differentiate between the howdunit and whodunit questions.

2. We must declare the former to have been answered beyond reasonable doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude.

3. We must reverse engineer, if you will, the proof of the howdunit solution to exclude false sponsors and move as close as we can to the necrotic core of this disease.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
1. We must constantly differentiate between the howdunit and whodunit questions.

Charles,

I agree with your line of thinking and I believe you've brought an important approach into play. For me, the Zfilm alteration topic has always been a distraction. A long time ago, I came to believe that it simply couldn't be done, given the variables on site. So every time it's brought up, it feels more like an unproductive tangent.

imo, Could there have been a shot from the front? Yes. Could there be conspirators? Yes. But could the Zfilm have been altered (along with dozens of other still and motion films? No way.

Again, it's just my opinion and I'm well aware that many people have brought tremendous experience and effort to bear in investigating that film. But if the effort that went into the Zfilm had been directed toward other areas, who knows what we may know by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one speaks of z fim alteration one covers a broad meaning.

For some it is a complete fabrication.

At the other end of the spectrum is the fact of splices and quite likely a few missing and or combined frames to make one frame.

I have never seen what I could say is a complete version.

What one can say with certainty is that all versions available to the general public, ranging from the grossly 'corrected' (altered) Costella version, to the selected set of b/w frames published by the WC in 1964, and all others being copies of the original are 'altered'.

It's the degree of alteration that's the real issue (IMO). As such I think most here agree the content we have is 'real'. But it has through the processes it's gone through had various qualities changed. It does support a conspiracy, whether it's the fact of splicing or the inconsistencies of WC conclusions and what the film shows.

IOW it IS, as available, altered, or rather, DIFFERENT TO SOME DEGREE, from the complete original. But it's not a fabrication. So the division between the 'alterationist' and the 'anti' is not really there. (IMO).

You people of the USA own it. Why not demand it be put into the public domain?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome?

If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now...

Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."?

DHealy

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Kathy

It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while:

http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search

Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity.

Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence.

I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up.

I will probably end up buying Bugliosi's book and studying it in detail. As far as the Z-film being altered and Luce being part of some conspiracy etc., I seem to remember that it was Life Magazine, FROM its study of the Z-film, that first called for a new investigation. In November 1966.

Now why would they do that if the film had been altered to hide a conspiracy? Well, maybe because the film shows Kennedy and Connally react seconds apart, and raises great doubt they were hit by the same shot...

That's interesting Pat; I've never heard that Life took that stance.

If you have sources that you can share so that we can look into it ourselves it'll be even more interesting.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So for the alteration nay-sayers, back to my original questions about the circumstances of Time/Life's possession of the Z-film.

Do you find it at all odd that a major news organization--Time/Life--would purchase a film showing the assassination of the President of the United States, and do nothing with it for years other than print a few stills?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So for the alteration nay-sayers, back to my original questions about the circumstances of Time/Life's possession of the Z-film.

Do you find it at all odd that a major news organization--Time/Life--would purchase a film showing the assassination of the President of the United States, and do nothing with it for years other than print a few stills?

No.

I can't see for the life of me what purpose it serves,were it altered.

I believe the Backyard Photos are doctored, but that has a purpose---to make Oswald very much look like the assassin.

But I would like to know, what would be the purpose of altering the Zfilm? And,why should we be lookng at any of this, if it is altered??

Perhaps, Myra, maybe we should turn all the lights off in Dealey Plaza, and see what is left---

only sounds.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...