Humint Events Online: Thoughts on Video Fakery

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Thoughts on Video Fakery

1) So I'm reading Fetzer's "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" which has a ton of interesting info. Specifically I've been reading John Costella's chapter, where he goes into excruciating detail about how the film was faked, and he starts going into the fake blood spray and gaping head wound, and how originally, a few frames of the putative Z film were published in Life magazine in 1963, way before the full Z film were shown to the public. These original frames did not show the fatal head shot and specifically excluded it. Costella hypothesized the fakers originally were not sure how to present the heat shot and how to fake the wounds in the film until later in time when the Z film was officially released (1975 or so). While I like the idea that the fakers did not know how to fake the head wounds, it's also possible that Life magazine did not want to show the fatal head shot sequence, for sensitivity reasons. But IN ANY CASE, what this reminded me of, was the 9/11 second hit videos, and how the original 2nd hit videos shown on 9/11 did not show the plane penetrating the tower, and really, the plane going into the tower and exploding was only implied. It was only much later in the day of 9/11, when the "Ghostplane" video was shown, that people could see the plane smoothly penetrate the south facade of WTC2. The idea was put out, I think by Nico Haupt originally, that the fakers did not know how to show the plane going in, until well after the event and had to rig up the videos that did show the actual penetration.  So, this was not unlike the Z film of the JFK assassination, where the detailed fakery took some time to create.

2) Thinking about the fake 2nd hit videos made me think of how the fakers could have kept bona fide videos of the second hit out of the public view.  So I realized that perhaps one important reason for the massive NSA dragnet after 9/11 was to identify anyone who might be disseminating a 9/11 video that showed the tower exploding without a plane going into it. And this may not even be a new thought, but it still makes sense!

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...



""It was only much later in the day of 9/11, when the "Ghostplane" video was shown,""

i think the ghostplane vid was presented by CNN on the next day - 9/12/01

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"t's also possible that Life magazine did not want to show the fatal head shot sequence, for sensitivity reasons."

They WERE sensitive to the fear of a large number of viewers would become much more aware that the assassination was a carefully planned conspiracy - by elements within the U.S. military and CIA.

9:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger