18-01-2010, 11:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 18-01-2010, 11:13 PM by Nathaniel Heidenheimer.)
It's worth keeping in mind the role of C.D. Jackson and his background in Psy-Ops. Could the purpose of the Z-film been other than its use as hard evidence? Could that role have been to divide the opposition to the coverup narrative, REGARDLESS of how it was used by those arguing conspiracy?
Is the Z-film PURE psy-op, or is such a thing impossible?
Conspiracy, in my view, is not contingent on either interpretation. But does that logically mean that we should give up trying to solve this debate if there is compelling new interviews from people of the stature of Dino Brugioni?
I am finding the books Douglas Horne very useful and not just on the question of the Z-film. It is a great historical overview of all of the medical evidence, with lots of new additions.
Is the Z-film PURE psy-op, or is such a thing impossible?
Conspiracy, in my view, is not contingent on either interpretation. But does that logically mean that we should give up trying to solve this debate if there is compelling new interviews from people of the stature of Dino Brugioni?
I am finding the books Douglas Horne very useful and not just on the question of the Z-film. It is a great historical overview of all of the medical evidence, with lots of new additions.