Friday, November 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Amazing interview Jim! Doug Horne killed it as usual. After hearing all the new revelations, I would say it is irrefutable the Zapruder film we all know is a CIA constructed sham. I would give my left nut to see the true origiinal, as I'm sure would you. Keep up the good fight and know that all your hard work does not go unappreciated. Have a blessed Thanksgiving!
ReplyDeleteAn excellent interview. Jim does a great job of letting Doug Horne make his presentation. --More classic audio from "The Real Deal".
ReplyDeleteJim's mention of the studies done on eyewitness testimony, and the concept of "salient" features when it comes to recall is quite useful -- and I think can be applied in reverse: to the thinking on the part of those involved in the cover-up as to what features had to be "covered up".
I don't think the CIA/national security types ordering the film's alteration could have anticipated at that early date the very special preoccupation of a JFK research community with the number of shots fired and the direction fired from in later years. In other words, I think that it's possible that while they knew the film had to be altered to preserve and promote the Lie, it might not have been an effort to thwart the specific and particular forensic investigation of shots and directions of later years.
The "salient" points, it seems to me, when I consider the described differences between the true original and the extant film are: 1) editing out the badly taken turn on to Elm; 2) the limo stop. These are big, significant differences that might seem more salient to the conspirators in the early days of a cover-up since they are the clearest signs of Secret Service and therefore institutional complicity. (The first being otherwise harmless or insignificant had there *not* been an assassination that day, but being potentially revelatory when seen in combination.)
As for why the head shot was itself altered, it seems to me the proof that its alteration was not totally and overridingly a matter of thwarting our attempts to use the film as forensic evidence is the fact that the altered extant film still is used very successfully to argue for a cover-up: the famous "back and to the left" motion from the movie JFK.
I think they "minimized" the head shot, cutting it down to a single frame, and willy-nilly adding the fake painted blood splash because there had to be one (a head shot).
I also continue to think that the so-called Other film (purportedly seen by Rich DellaRosa and others) is probably the original true Zapruder film. It'd be interesting to know whether anybody alive who saw the Other film can corroborate the "white" explosion Horne mentions as being described to him.