The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Douglas Caddy]

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 21, 2015:

In the following the late Rich Dellarosa speaks for himself, as he always did in his replies to some questions in 2009...about the often asked...
The "other" Zapruder film -- FAQs
Since I appeared recently on Len Osanic's "Black Op" radio
program, I have been receiving several questions, I'll try and
answer them here:
1. Where can this film be viewed?
I really don't know. I believe that copies exist in various places around the world. However I have no knowledge where it can be viewed. I never at any time possessed a copy myself. When I saw it, the film was shown by a person unknown to me along with some others in a suburb of Washington DC (College Park, MD).
2. Do you believe it is an unedited version of the Zapruder Film?
Personally, I do not believe the film is in any way a version of the Zapruder film. The Z film appears amateurish to me and unrealistic in the sense that it seems like an animated "cartoon". The "other" film seemed to be professionally done with great color rendition and smooth panning. Additionally, I am unsure as to whether Zapruder shot the film attributed to him. A French photo journalist who saw the film on several occasions does refer to it as an unedited version of the Z film FWIW.
3. What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?
The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm.
The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when
the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left
the Plaza, The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm.
The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St. In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen.
In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.
The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z
film shows no stop.
The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.
With the limo stopped, Greer turned to face JFK. At that moment JFK received 2 shots to the head: one from the rear causing his head to move forward slightly and one to the right temple, fired from the front, resulting in a violent explosion out the rear of JFK's head and sending a huge spray of blood and brain matter toward DPD Officer Hargis hitting his helmet with what William Manchester termed a "red sheet" and with such force that Hargis later said he thought he himself was hit. This most gory explosion of matter is not accurately portrayed in the extant Z Film.
Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and accelerated the limo leaving Dealey Plaza and passing the lead car to entrance the Stemmons freeway.
4. If the Zapruder film is altered, why did "they" leave in the explosive
head shot?
The first thing to keep in mind is that "they" never believed the Z film would be viewed by the public. Members of the WC stated that they believed only a few college professors would even read their report. With Time, Inc. and the FBI controlling access to the Z film they could control who could view it or even selected frames from it. If questioned, they could always say it was being withheld due to concern over the Kennedy family's right to privacy.
In 1975, the extant Z film was shown on national TV on Geraldo Rivera's
"Goodnight America" program by Robert Groden. That segment
can be found on MPI's DVD Image Of An Assassination." The public
was shocked to see the head shot. To many, the Z film was proof of a
second gunman, one firing from the front. To counter those beliefs a
Nobel winning physicist (Luis Alvarez) concocted a "jet effect" theory to
explain how a shot from the TSBD could cause the violent "back and to the left" reaction defying Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows:
The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
The alterationists IMO HAD to leave in the fatal head shot. They couldn't
very well claim that JFK was a victim of whiplash. At the necessary time
Dr Alvarez was dragged out to produce a total canard.
5. Why was the Zapruder film fabricated/altered?
IMO, and simply stated, the purposes of altering the Z film, in order of
priority, were:
To remove all evidence of multiple shooters
To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible
To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity
6. On 11/23, Dan Rather claimed to have viewed the Z film, the first
reporter to do so. He claimed that JFK's head was throw violently
forward not backward. How can that be?
IMO, he may have been shown an early attempt of an altered film in which the frames were reversed. But it is possible that he saw NO film at all --and he was instructed what to say. Keep in mind that on 11/22, Rather was simply a TV reporter for the local Dallas CBS affiliate -- but virtually overnight he was promoted to CBS's official White House Correspondent. Quid pro quo??
7. Will the "other" film ever become accessible to the public?
I truly doubt it. It is a dangerous property because that one film proves that JFK was murdered as a part of a well planned and executed conspiracy. It lays the WCR bare as an intentionally written pack of lies and proves the complicity of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the highest levels of the U.S government.
I have known of ~ a half dozen people who have seen the film in the distant, past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. I truly wish that someone would come forward and report a more recent viewing.
-----------------------------
Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 22, 2015:
What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?
The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm.
The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when
the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left
the Plaza,
The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going
up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm.
The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St.
In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen. In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open
umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.
The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z film shows no stop.
The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.
--------------------------------
Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 22, 2015:
The people who saw THE OTHER FILM are very willing to talk about it. Some who saw it were in military circumstances. Some were in college settings. Some were in intelligence connections. But all described the exact same film.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

There's another common thread with viewers of this alleged film. They claim that there is information attached to their viewing of said film, or the circumstances therein, that they simply cannot reveal. As if revealing info would cause the Phillipines to blow up or something.

It's the same BS we see coming from Ricky White and his ilk. They are "in the know" until it comes time to prove something. Then they demure. Lemkin does this all the time. "There are vastly important things that I cannot reveal..."

I believe this is strictly a matter of a few guys wanting to somehow elevate their experience of JFK research into the murky caverns they purport to be researching.

There is no "other" film.

[Jon G. Tidd]

The main thing that has jumped out at me in the extant Z-film is the "frozen" appearance of the persons lining Elm Street.

I'm in the camp that believes the extant Z-film is faked, start to finish.

As for there being another film, I have to ask: Was it really of professional quality? If so, did Zapruder, with his Bell&Howell and his vertigo, have the ability to take a film of professional quality?

[John Dolva]

...

There is no "other" film.

Amen to that!

[Douglas Caddy]

Danny Vasquez lists the names of five persons who have seen the alleged film. One of them is a prominent member of our forum. I have decided not to list the names of the five persons for privacy reasons.

[Ron Ecker]

To me the "other" Z film is like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I'll believe it exists when someone shows it to me.

Then what of the people who say they have seen it? I believe that at least some of them really believe that they saw what they say they saw. But what they saw was the Z film, with their memory over the years playing tricks on them as to what they saw. Thus the "other" Z film is in effect a false memory.

I have personal experience with a JFK-related false memory, which I have described before on this forum, so I know what it can do to you. I still have a vivid memory of watching the ambulance with the Dallas casket arrive at Bethesda on live TV. I remember the ambulance sitting there for several minutes, with some broadcaster's comment about it, till some kind of officer got into the ambulance and drove it away. Years later I tried in vain to find as much as a single clip from that TV coverage to no avail. Gary Mack finally assured me that in fact there was no live TV coverage of the casket's arrival at Bethesda, that what I must be remembering was the live TV coverage of the ambulance leaving Andrews AF Base. But I have seen that footage and it is not the event that I remember at all. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that what I vividly remember - live TV coverage of the arrival of the ambulance at Bethesda - never happened. It has to be a false memory created over the years by the things I have read about the arrival. At least that's my theory.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Douglas Caddy,

I imagine all here want to know the identities of the five persons,

Why not list them? Are you worried about libel? Or attorney-client privilege?

[Thomas Graves]

The main thing that has jumped out at me in the extant Z-film is the "frozen" appearance of the persons lining Elm Street.

I'm in the camp that believes the extant Z-film is faked, start to finish.

As for there being another film, I have to ask: Was it really of professional quality? If so, did Zapruder, with his Bell&Howell and his vertigo, have the ability to take a film of professional quality?

Wow, Mr. Jon G. Tidd.

You think the "extant" Z-film was faked from start to finish.

By whom? Walt Disney?

Sure sounds like a lot of work to me.

"Frozen" witnesses? Well, I would kinda stand respectfully at "attention" as the President of the United States and his beautiful wife rode by in a limo, surrounded by heavilly-armed policemen and Secret Service agents, wouldn't you. And if I heard firecrackers or gunshots ring out, I suppose I'd just stand there in disbelief...

When you say "extant" I guess you're implying that there was originally a radically different Z-film, and that it was radically reworked in the dark room to create what we today call the "Z-film".

Boy, that sure sounds like a lot of work to me.

Do you think the bad guys worked on it all during the time period from, say, 11/23/63 until Geraldo showed it on TV, or do you think the bad guys only need a relatively short period of time to accomplish this?

Do you tend to think like former "contributor" Robert Mady that the bad guys staged and filmed assassination scenes in advance or after the fact, using known assassination witnesses, etc?

--Tommy

Edited April 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Andrews]

Missing turn onto Elm Street?

Dark spot on back of JFK's head during fatal shot sequence, different from the expected view under noontime sun?

[Thomas Graves]

Missing turn onto Elm Street?

Dark spot on back of JFK's head during fatal shot sequence, different from the expected view under noontime sun?

So the Z-film was faked / altered in certain places or, as Jon G. Tidd says, "from start to finish"?

--Tommy

Edited April 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Douglas Caddy,

I imagine all here want to know the identities of the five persons,

Why not list them? Are you worried about libel? Or attorney-client privilege?

They're not hard to find online. Greg Burnham, Rich Della Rosa, a few others.

A smattering of intrigue, a dash of Mission Impossible, a shmear of Bourne Identity.

Good fun.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe in keeping an open mind on this matter.

In regards to Dan Rather, there is one thing he describes in the "other" film he supposedly viewed, that is repeated in the testimony of an eyewitness.

Sam Holland was standing atop the Triple Underpass and witnessed the entire shooting. Below is an excerpt from his WC testimony:

"Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.

Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
Mr. STERN - To his right?"

Coincidentally, or not, this is exactly the same thing Dan Rather reported seeing Connally do when he viewed the Zapruder film, only days after the assassination. Of course, Connally is not seen extending his right hand toward JFK in the Zapruder film we see. Both men also describe JFK raising his right hand to his head after the first shot, another thing not seen in the Zapruder film we see.

[Thomas Graves]

I believe in keeping an open mind on this matter.

In regards to Dan Rather, there is one thing he describes in the "other" film he supposedly viewed, that is repeated in the testimony of an eyewitness.

Sam Holland was standing atop the Triple Underpass and witnessed the entire shooting. Below is an excerpt from his WC testimony:

"Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.

Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?

Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.

Mr. STERN - To his right?"

Coincidentally, or not, this is exactly the same thing Dan Rather reported seeing Connally do when he viewed the Zapruder film, only days after the assassination. Of course, Connally is not seen extending his right hand toward JFK in the Zapruder film we see. Both men also describe JFK raising his right hand to his head after the first shot, another thing not seen in the Zapruder film we see.

Robert,

Maybe Connally was just waving to Gloria Calvary, telling her she better "get on her horse and hightail it" to the TSBD so she could be caught on film with Marion Baker, William Shelley, and Billy Lovelady. Maybe the bad guys decided to cut that part out or alter it because if they knew that if they left it in, it would prove there was a conspiracy to frame "Marina's husband" after the fact.

--Tommy

Edited April 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Pat Speer]

There's another common thread with viewers of this alleged film. They claim that there is information attached to their viewing of said film, or the circumstances therein, that they simply cannot reveal. As if revealing info would cause the Phillipines to blow up or something.

It's the same BS we see coming from Ricky White and his ilk. They are "in the know" until it comes time to prove something. Then they demure. Lemkin does this all the time. "There are vastly important things that I cannot reveal..."

I believe this is strictly a matter of a few guys wanting to somehow elevate their experience of JFK research into the murky caverns they purport to be researching.

There is no "other" film.

I hate to admit I agree with you. Murky impressions of the film being different have become clear-cut memories of a different film. That kind of thing happens over time. My mom still claims I was born on a Thursday even though the calendar for my birth year shows it was on a Friday, etc.

IF someone was to show us notes on the film written on the evening they viewed the film, along with the circumstances leading to their viewing the film, and the names of those in attendance, I might be persuaded. But no such notes exist, and those claiming they've viewed the film have kept their stories as vague as can be.

So, nope, not going for it.

[Ron Ecker]

However, it would make a good movie. "The Man Who Filmed Too Much." Too bad Alfred Hitchcock isn't around to direct it.