Jump to content
The Education Forum

The "other" film?


Recommended Posts

Much has been said about the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Now we are told that there is yet another film in existence. This other film allegedly holds information that, in my opinion, would settle the case for a conspiracy once and for all.

It is claimed, that:

(1) The Presidential limousine came to a complete stop, for a couple of seconds.

(2) The fatal head shot occured during this complete stop.

(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person.

The implications of this are no doubt huge. If this tilm exists, and if it's authenticity can be established, then:

(1) Tampering with the Z-film has occurred, case closed.

(2) All coincidencies with other films are false.

(3) The case for conspiracy would be definitive.

When discussing this issue a remarkable silence appears. Which I find peculiar. All this effort spent on all thinkable issues related to the JFK assassination, but in this one issue silence is golden?

I would appreciate thoughts on this. Until there's an explanation for the lack of research efforts on this very subject, the only conclusion is that this is all a myth. No researchers on this subject? Come on - there ought to be droves of researchers going to the bottom of this?

What am I missing here?

EDIT: Spelling errors.

Surely you jest. Is this a xxxxx?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Glen,

1) The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual.

2) The "secrecy" seems to be related, IMO, to the gross negligence (at best) --or the complicity--of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail as

demonstrably evident by their inaction and by several breaches of protocol.

3) Although I didn't see it on any TV station, Milicent Cranor saw it as Jack reported and Scott Myers saw it on television.

4) I was in no position to ask such questions at the time even if I had thought to ask them.

5) I have never expected anyone to take my word for it. I understand the reluctance. I would respond in exactly the same way.

I wish I could be more helpful, but that is all I know.

Hey there Greg...

You mentioned you couldn't related the circumstances... maybe a couple of questions then?

- Was the film a "film", beta, VHS, DVD, ???

- It was definitely the assassination... not a re-enactment, a training exercise, etc...

- Trying to understand Altgens 6 then... regardless of the z frame... at no point is the Queen Mary 85 feet or even 25 feet from the limo... Altgens seems to show it about the same distance as the Nix/Muchmore films...

- you don't remember any glaring differences in the movements of any one individual? JC's getting hit AFTER the sign or do you get a better view of his being hit... once, twice?

- does it end the same way? limo speeding away under the overpass with the GK fence?

- did the other vehicles stop when the limo did or just slowly close the gap?

Greg, I printed your posted description and now keep it with me... I for one believe you and the others have seen it.

Given how much gets on the internet, it does seem strange that this version has not been more widely seen... or talked about. :ph34r:

as I mentioned elsewhere, if Zapruder filmed without the telephoto setting, would it make sense that this film would be cropped/edited/painted/etc from this to emulate a telephoto image?... it would be of better quality since it was the true out of camera original... just a thought, I know there are photogrpahic realities to difference lens settings... so not sure if that could even work...

Thanks again Greg - the idea that some on this forum have known this for years, obviously, and do not make more of an issue is surprising to me... the film appears real and has been seen... what other possible explanation is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the reason Monk does not want to tell more about his viewing of the

other film is that as a youth (his father had important Washington connections) he

had access to many individuals still living whose safety might be compromised if it

becomes known that they know of THE OTHER FILM. This is speculation on my part.

Perhaps some day the situation will change.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the reason Monk does not want to tell more about his viewing of the

other film is that as a youth (his father had important Washington connections) he

had access to many individuals still living whose safety might be compromised if it

becomes known that they know of THE OTHER FILM. This is speculation on my part.

Perhaps some day the situation will change.

Jack

No matter if somehow the SS could be embarrassed - or perhaps worse - by this other film, it's indeed extremely odd that only a selected few have actually viewed the film. Beside, that is, those who certainly must have watched it when an un-named TV-station aired it?

It all just doesn't add up, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the reason Monk does not want to tell more about his viewing of the

other film is that as a youth (his father had important Washington connections) he

had access to many individuals still living whose safety might be compromised if it

becomes known that they know of THE OTHER FILM. This is speculation on my part.

Perhaps some day the situation will change.

Jack

No matter if somehow the SS could be embarrassed - or perhaps worse - by this other film, it's indeed extremely odd that only a selected few have actually viewed the film. Beside, that is, those who certainly must have watched it when an un-named TV-station aired it?

It all just doesn't add up, in my opinion.

No...not just a select few. All except Cranor were in group settings. At the time, most thought they were seeing the Zapruder film,

which most had not seen previously. Only much later, when COPIES OF THE EXTANT FILM BECAME NUMEROUS did they realize

that it does not show things they vividly remember, such as the limo turning the corner and stopping during the shots.

I would guess that hundreds saw it...but long before the extant film became widely seen. Only in retrospect did some of them

remember that the two films did not match.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glen,

1) The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual.

2) The "secrecy" seems to be related, IMO, to the gross negligence (at best) --or the complicity--of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail as

demonstrably evident by their inaction and by several breaches of protocol.

3) Although I didn't see it on any TV station, Milicent Cranor saw it as Jack reported and Scott Myers saw it on television.

4) I was in no position to ask such questions at the time even if I had thought to ask them.

5) I have never expected anyone to take my word for it. I understand the reluctance. I would respond in exactly the same way.

I wish I could be more helpful, but that is all I know.

Hey there Greg...

You mentioned you couldn't related the circumstances... maybe a couple of questions then?

- Was the film a "film", beta, VHS, DVD, ???

- It was definitely the assassination... not a re-enactment, a training exercise, etc...

- Trying to understand Altgens 6 then... regardless of the z frame... at no point is the Queen Mary 85 feet or even 25 feet from the limo... Altgens seems to show it about the same distance as the Nix/Muchmore films...

- you don't remember any glaring differences in the movements of any one individual? JC's getting hit AFTER the sign or do you get a better view of his being hit... once, twice?

- does it end the same way? limo speeding away under the overpass with the GK fence?

- did the other vehicles stop when the limo did or just slowly close the gap?

Greg, I printed your posted description and now keep it with me... I for one believe you and the others have seen it.

Given how much gets on the internet, it does seem strange that this version has not been more widely seen... or talked about. :ph34r:

as I mentioned elsewhere, if Zapruder filmed without the telephoto setting, would it make sense that this film would be cropped/edited/painted/etc from this to emulate a telephoto image?... it would be of better quality since it was the true out of camera original... just a thought, I know there are photogrpahic realities to difference lens settings... so not sure if that could even work...

Thanks again Greg - the idea that some on this forum have known this for years, obviously, and do not make more of an issue is surprising to me... the film appears real and has been seen... what other possible explanation is there?

Hi David,

I gave a radio interview on Jim Fetzer's show about 10 days or so ago. The link is: Ventura/Burnham Interview

My segment starts right after Jesse Ventura's is over. I describe what I saw in the "other film" there. Hopefully it will answer your questions more fully. The medium

was definitely film--it was shown through a projector onto a screen. The quality was superb.

It was definitely the assassination. I've seen plenty of other crime re-enactment films of various types for various purposes. If this was just a re-enactment film, it's

the only one in which the lead "actor" got his BRAINS BLOWN OUT of his head and died. You might say, "Perhaps they played it a little too real..." I realize that it doesn't

jibe with other extant films shot that day. As for distinct movements, I recall none other than what I have already reported. However, I did have the distinct impression

that JC was hit several times. How many times? At least twice. I'm recalling from visual impression irrespective of what the medical report says. He appeared to be hit on

two occasions with a short interval between volleys of perhaps one second, IMO--best estimate from memory. As for the end of the film, the film I saw remained centered

on the area of Elm where the limo stopped. I don't recall ever seeing the GK fence area, but "the action" part was over by then and I just might not remember. The Queen

Mary definitely came to a complete stop. As for the other vehicles, I don't know.

The TOPIC of this "other film" was one of the main subjects of research for a number of years (5+) on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum (Rich DellaRosa's site). Probably

all of the real battles fought on the subject were covered there at one point or another. Of the approximately 15 persons who were permanently banned from that forum

over its 13 year lifespan, the vast majority (12) were banned for undue disruption of research relating to the Zapruder Film fakery issue. When one considers the myriad

assassination topics researched there--all of which were controversial--that the number of severe disruptions were caused surrounding that particular issue is quite

telling. The tactics used by those wishing to derail the research were formidably disguised many times and it became evident only later what the real motivation was.

I cannot say to a moral certainty what the film was. That is the truth. I can only go on my honest impression. I do not now know, nor have I ever known, who owned or

who was in "control" of the film that I saw. The first time I saw it--there was literally no warning! None of us knew what we were about to see. Afterwards, the room was

deadly silent. After multiple viewings each one of us went away with the impression that we were each somehow personally responsible for "losing the client" -- which was

actually the intended reaction being solicited.

The subject of the existence of this film is a bit nerve rattling for most people. I understand. It has left me rattled at times, too. I am a researcher, first and foremost. I am not

a "witness" per se. Let's keep it that way. However, when a few of us are adamantly convinced that the Z-film is a fraud, perhaps this explains it. For those who know me, I

would normally reject "theories" that do not live up to certain standards. However, in this case, I am not relying on any "theory" of alteration.

Gary Mack wrote me several times about the "other film" and first suggested that I saw a re-enactment film. He even claimed to know which one. If true, I wish he would kindly

upload it for comparison purposes. He subsequently claimed that what I saw was a "hoax film" of which he was also aware that was circulated around college campuses. If true,

perhaps he will kindly upload it for comparison purposes.

The bottom line: If it is proved that what I saw was a very convincing--VERY CONVINCING--"hoax film" then, so be it. I'd like to know. Presumably, it is much easier for

Mack to provide such an innocuous, albeit distasteful, piece of footage than it is for anyone to provide the "real deal"...

PS: For the record, I have no doubt that what I saw was the real deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I listened to the interview you gave with Jim Fetzer.

The obvious differences that you claim between those films are of course in and of themselves astonishing.

But it is also a fact that the extant film has led many to believe that a conspiracy occured. So therefore I wonder: Is it fair to say that your view is that this other film supports a conspiracy to a higher degree than the extant film?

If so, why? Would that mainly have to do with the limo having stopped completely when the head shot occured? When listening to you I get the impression that this is the most important difference between the extant film and the "other" film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn,

In my opinion, the extant film shows what appears to me to be remnants of evidence of a frontal head shot. However, it leaves room for doubt. Now, why would I say such a thing? Because

we know that the Warren Commission concluded that JFK was shot twice from the rear by one man who was acting alone. They reached this conclusion even AFTER having viewed the

evidence in the Zapruder Film of a frontal head shot. Indeed, they based this conclusion on the Zapruder film to some degree. We also know that the HSCA would have concluded the same

thing based on the Zapruder film evidence and only changed their conclusion based on the acoustic evidence. So both official government investigatory bodies concluded no conspiracy

based on the evidence (or lack thereof) in the Zapruder film.

The "other film" by contrast leaves no doubt that there was a conspiracy before and during the commission of the crime due to the inaction of the Secret Service PPD and also due

to certain inexplicable behaviors on their part, such as, bringing the client car to a complete stop, among other things. I agree that the most significant item in the film would have to be

the complete stop, but the growing distance between the Queen Mary and the SS X-100 as the latter approaches the "kill zone" is nearly as equally inculpatory. The perfidy is dripping from

the frames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps some day the situation will change.

Jack

Perhaps, someday... Thanks for cutting me the slack, Jack. Although your supposition is not completely

accurate as to the individuals involved, still your intuition serves you well, as usual, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has sent me an email message in which he has asked me to "correct" my earlier post. I do NOT post any private emails

for public viewing under any circumstances without explicit permission. The only exception to this rule is if and/or when I am being

misquoted by the recipient. Therefore, I will not post his email.

However, I will say this much:

Gary Mack has never claimed to me that he is in possession of a Secret Service and/or FBI and/or CIA and/or ONI and/or Army Intelligence

and/or Vatican Intelligence re-enactment film.

As I re-read my posts from above I confirmed that I never claimed that he was in possession of same. However, he did say that he was aware

of a "re-enactment film" that he originally claimed was "probably" what I saw [paraphrased]. Then he later claimed that what I saw was "probably"

a "hoax" film shown on college campuses.

I don't know what the hell he is talking about.

However, if he is aware of ANY SUCH FILMS he should be the first one to do his best to secure their "emergence into the sunshine" if for

no other reason than to shed light on the case.

If he is unaware of such films he has once again proved himself to be disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn,

The "other film" by contrast leaves no doubt that there was a conspiracy before and during the commission of the crime due to the inaction of the Secret Service PPD and also due to certain inexplicable behaviors on their part, such as, bringing the client car to a complete stop, among other things.

Greg,

Isn't this the exact same arguments brought forward by some of those who have seen the Z-film? That the Secret Service [or certain members therof] was part of the conspiracy? Does this other film really add anything to your own suspicions in that regard, as compared to the Zapruder film?

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome. Glenn.

I know that we have "butted heads" in the past. Perhaps we will again in the future. I don't know.

But, I am grateful for the manner in which you have comported yourself in this thread. You seemed

to be genuinely seeking the truth.

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

×
×
  • Create New...