The "other" film?

[David Josephs]

Has anybody ever attempted to film Elm Street from inside the west enclosure of the north pergola?

Could a cameraman get a view of the corner turn and the underpass escape from that windowed pillbox?

Could the result be matched to any memories of the "other" film?

David,

I cannot see how it's possible to film ANY movie from behind Zapruder and maintain the line of sight of the Zfilm.... not with a single camera at least...

Look at this composite.... a camera would have to swing, physically move horizontally many, many feet to maintain the view of the limo... I would think there needed to be at least 3 cameras... left, middle and right to catch all that action and at similair line of sights as Zapruder... guess we have to see if there is evidence of any cameras in/on the pergola behind (and would have to be above) Zapruder...

DJ

[David Andrews]

Thanks, DJ - that's good to know. I wonder if a cameraman was behind the rear colonnade window openings, where Mr. Hester ran once the shooting was over.

[Pamela Brown]

I do not understand the question.

Jack

PS

On second thought, I guess you mean people like you and me. Only 6 or 7 people claim to have

seen the other film. After they realized it was NOT the Z film, they DID research to whatever extent

possible to determine what it was they saw. However, it was years later, and the trails were cold.

The important things are:

1. None was aware of the stories of the others, and came forward independently.

2. All said the film was superior in quality to the Z film.

3. All said the film showed the limo turning the corner.

4. All said the film showed the limo coming to a stop.

5. All said the film was from the same OR ALMOST SAME viewpoint as Zapruder.

That is everything we know. Where do we go from there?

One other thing...William Reymond said he was told that the film he saw several

times WAS THE H.L. HUNT COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM. However, this is just

hearsay, since the film he described matches "the other film."

One might say all 6 persons were mistaken. The odds of that?

As for the researcher that DellaRosa told a more complete version to, the answer

lies with whatever the agreement was between Rich and that person.

Jack

Fair enough, Jack.

And the perplexing reality is that, as an answer to your question of where do we go from here, this has not been followed through. I could think of a whole range of different questions to ask:

(1) Who is in possession of this film? And why?

(2) What's the secrecy all about? The Z-film has been out in the open for years.

(3) Which television station aired this film, and when?

(4) If, as indicated by what I understand, Intelligent Agencys (US/Abroad?)are in the know about this, then why would we believe them in this instance? What would be the reason to think that this film is authentic?

(5) How can it be verified that this film exists? As has been stated many times, exceptional claims demands exceptional evidence, sayso's are certainly not enough.

To name a few.

With all due respect, doesn't your theory beg the question that the 'other film' is actually the unaltered Zapruder film?

He didn't present a theory he pointed out logical flaws in an unlikely one. Doesn't your question "beg the question" that the Z-film was altered and that an alternate has been circulated?

Then this theory is that a copy of the Z-film(s) was altered to include things that point to conspiracy and that the relatively grainy version(s) that we currently have available, replete with obvious splices and odd anomalies, is actually 'the original'?

This IS NOT A THEORY. Several believable people have reported seeing another film (different from the Zapruder film). That is why it is called THE OTHER FILM.

It resembles the Z film, but shows events not seen in the Z film. Most saw it BEFORE they saw the Z film, but THOUGHT it was the Z film at the time they saw

it. Only later ON SEEING THE Z FILM did they realize the two films were different. They knew they had previously seen the LIMO TURN and LIMO STOP.

Jack

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

[Greg Burnham]

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

Yes. It appeared to be shot from a very similar position to that seen in the Zapruder film. I tend to believe that it was NOT the "unaltered"

Zapruder film because of certain differences. However, that possibility has not been ruled out. The very high quality of the film is also less

than consistent with what we see in the extant Zapruder film, among other things.

[Kathleen Collins]

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

I don't know why they keep hiding this film -- the H.L.Hunt Version. At the time Hunt was the wealthiest man in the world and he was also a John Bircher and a Kennedy hater. He thought Kennedy was a communist. I believe the Assassination was being planned earlier than Nov.12, 1963 (the date Kennedy sent out 2 memos re UFO's). And they did a good job of it, seeing they got away with it (Ed Lansdale?). But all the people involved are dead. Someone should come forward with it -- even if it involves money. Even if they sell it to Larry Flynt.

I've read that at some point Jackie Kennedy wanted to see the film. Which one did they show her?

Kathy C

Kathy C

[Glenn Viklund]

I don't know why they keep hiding this film -- the H.L.Hunt Version. At the time Hunt was the wealthiest man in the world and he was also a John Bircher and a Kennedy hater. He thought Kennedy was a communist. I believe the Assassination was being planned earlier than Nov.12, 1963 (the date Kennedy sent out 2 memos re UFO's). And they did a good job of it, seeing they got away with it (Ed Lansdale?). But all the people involved are dead. Someone should come forward with it -- even if it involves money. Even if they sell it to Larry Flynt.

I've read that at some point Jackie Kennedy wanted to see the film. Which one did they show her?

Kathy C

Kathy,

The H.L. Hunt version? What are the facts to back this up?

[Len Colby]

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

Yes. It appeared to be shot from a very similar position to that seen in the Zapruder film. I tend to believe that it was NOT the "unaltered"

Zapruder film because of certain differences. However, that possibility has not been ruled out. The very high quality of the film is also less

than consistent with what we see in the extant Zapruder film, among other things.

Can you provide the details of when you saw this mysterious other film?

[Glenn Viklund]

The other film is like the Holy Grail of Christian mythology--except we have no doubt that this

film actually exists. What is there about this situation that "doesn't add up"?

I'm not that surprised by the fact that in your opinion everything add up. But since you are asking, let me then point out a few more things:

(1) Why would this other film have been aired on a TV-station? Having in mind your own arguments, you don't find this odd? And why can it not be established which TV-station and when this presumably occurred? Perfectly explainable to you? I'm all ears..

(2) Again, having your own arguments in mind - why, for what reason, would anyone be invited to watch this film, much less well known JFK researchers? And why can those who claim to have watched it not disclose the details about those events? Oh, I agree, it's very easy to speculate about it, but I prefer to know, not speculate.

(3) Among all thousands of photos and films taken this day, this other film would no doubt be the most sensational piece of them all - if it really exists, and if it's authentic. You don't find it strange that despite people having watched it and a TV station allegedly aired it - it's still nowhere to be found today? No leakage? Does that make sense?

(4) Judging by some of what's been said in this thread and the other one a couple of weeks ago, it's "unlikely" that this is the unaltered Z-film. So, from where was it shot? The Pergola? Of those people in close proximity to the Pergola during the shooting, how many have stated that there was another film being taken during the event? And for what reason would anyone be hiding somewhere in order to film the Presidential Limo when it passes by? Does any of this make sense?

(5) Burnham, Cranor and Dellarosa. As I understand it, all three of them have different recollections. If nothing else, that's a good reason all by itself to determine which alleged version is the correct one.

These are things that in my opinion do not "add up" - at all. And that's why I find it relevant to ask "naive questions".

Edited April 19, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Jack White]

I'm not that surprised by the fact that in your opinion everything add up. But since you are asking, let me then point out a few more things:

(1) Why would this other film have been aired on a TV-station? Having in mind your own arguments, you don't find this odd? And why can it not be established which TV-station and when this presumably occurred? Perfectly explainable to you? I'm all ears..

Mili Cranor is the only one who saw it at A TV NETWORK OFFICES IN NYC, not aired on a TV station. The name of the network is known.

(2) Again, having your own arguments in mind - why, for what reason, would anyone be invited to watch this film, much less well known JFK researchers? And why can those who claim to have watched it not disclose the details about those events? Oh, I agree, it's very easy to speculate about it, but I prefer to know, not speculate.

All of these people except Reymond saw it in the 1960s or 70s. At that time none of them were well known JFK researchers. Most saw it as

part of a training session. Reymond saw it because he is a journalist, and was shown it by a retired intelligence agent.

(3) Among all thousands of photos and films taken this day, this other film would no doubt be the most sensational piece of them all - if it really exists, and if it's authentic. You don't find it strange that despite people having watched it and a TV station allegedly aired it - it's still nowhere to be found today? No leakage? Does that make sense?

It existed at the time that these credible persons viewed it independently at different times and places. What they viewed was evidently one

of many copies available within the governmental settings where shown.

(4) Judging by some of what's been said in this thread and the other one a couple of weeks ago, it's "unlikely" that this is the unaltered Z-film. So, from where was it shot? The Pergola? Of those people in close proximity to the Pergola during the shooting, how many have stated that there was another film being taken during the event? And for what reason would anyone be hiding somewhere in order to film the Presidential Limo when it passes by? Does any of this make sense?

The film is NOT any form of Zapruder film. It is called THE OTHER FILM very similar to the Z film. At the time in the 1960s or 70s when the

persons saw it, they THOUGHT they were seeing the Z film. ONLY in retrospect years later AFTER seeing the Z film did they realize that they

had seen a DIFFERENT FILM...better quality, limo turning corner, limo stopping, etc. It is unknown where the photographer was located; he

was not necessarily hiding...but all evidence of him is missing from the official record. Even a possibility is that a remotely controlled camera

could have been used. Evidence DOES exist that Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming...so the photographer could have even been on

the pedestal.

(5) Burnham, Cranor and Dellarosa. As I understand it, all three of them have different recollections. If nothing else, that's a good reason all by itself to determine which alleged version is the correct one.

Different people seeing such a film at different times and places naturally will not have the same recollections. Their versions are "correct"

for the film they saw. The striking thing is that ALL remember the LIMO TURN and the LIMO STOP.

It is natural that those who have not seen the other film are skeptical.

Jack

Edited April 19, 2011 by Jack White

[David G. Healy]

Although I have no faith in another film having been shot from a near identical location, I made this speculative analysis way back in 2003.

you may admit at anytime, Sitzman is, at the very least, an interesting character. A character we know next to nothing about...

ever see one of these before? speculation of course...

Edited April 19, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Glenn Viklund]

I'm not that surprised by the fact that in your opinion everything add up. But since you are asking, let me then point out a few more things:

(1) Why would this other film have been aired on a TV-station? Having in mind your own arguments, you don't find this odd? And why can it not be established which TV-station and when this presumably occurred? Perfectly explainable to you? I'm all ears..

Mili Cranor is the only one who saw it at A TV NETWORK OFFICES IN NYC, not aired on a TV station. The name of the network is known.

(2) Again, having your own arguments in mind - why, for what reason, would anyone be invited to watch this film, much less well known JFK researchers? And why can those who claim to have watched it not disclose the details about those events? Oh, I agree, it's very easy to speculate about it, but I prefer to know, not speculate.

All of these people except Reymond saw it in the 1960s or 70s. At that time none of them were well known JFK researchers. Most saw it as

part of a training session. Reymond saw it because he is a journalist, and was shown it by a retired intelligence agent.

(3) Among all thousands of photos and films taken this day, this other film would no doubt be the most sensational piece of them all - if it really exists, and if it's authentic. You don't find it strange that despite people having watched it and a TV station allegedly aired it - it's still nowhere to be found today? No leakage? Does that make sense?

It existed at the time that these credible persons viewed it independently at different times and places. What they viewed was evidently one

of many copies available within the governmental settings where shown.

(4) Judging by some of what's been said in this thread and the other one a couple of weeks ago, it's "unlikely" that this is the unaltered Z-film. So, from where was it shot? The Pergola? Of those people in close proximity to the Pergola during the shooting, how many have stated that there was another film being taken during the event? And for what reason would anyone be hiding somewhere in order to film the Presidential Limo when it passes by? Does any of this make sense?

The film is NOT any form of Zapruder film. It is called THE OTHER FILM very similar to the Z film. At the time in the 1960s or 70s when the

persons saw it, they THOUGHT they were seeing the Z film. ONLY in retrospect years later AFTER seeing the Z film did they realize that they

had seen a DIFFERENT FILM...better quality, limo turning corner, limo stopping, etc. It is unknown where the photographer was located; he

was not necessarily hiding...but all evidence of him is missing from the official record. Even a possibility is that a remotely controlled camera

could have been used. Evidence DOES exist that Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming...so the photographer could have even been on

the pedestal.

(5) Burnham, Cranor and Dellarosa. As I understand it, all three of them have different recollections. If nothing else, that's a good reason all by itself to determine which alleged version is the correct one.

Different people seeing such a film at different times and places naturally will not have the same recollections. Their versions are "correct"

for the film they saw. The striking thing is that ALL remember the LIMO TURN and the LIMO STOP.

It is natural that those who have not seen the other film are skeptical.

Jack

Thank you for your answers, Jack. I will respond in a few days. Your answers begs more thoughts, and this weekend is not the time..

[Len Colby]

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

Yes. It appeared to be shot from a very similar position to that seen in the Zapruder film. I tend to believe that it was NOT the "unaltered"

Zapruder film because of certain differences. However, that possibility has not been ruled out. The very high quality of the film is also less

than consistent with what we see in the extant Zapruder film, among other things.

Can you provide the details of when you saw this mysterious other film?

Still waiting for an answer Greg

[Richard Hocking]

You must be new to this. Those who viewed the other film have been discussed for many years. From memory:

Rich DellaRosa...viewed numerous times under classified circumstances.

William Reymond...viewed numerous times courtesy of former intelligence agent.

Dan Marvin...viewed as a CIA training film.

Scott Meyer...Dallas researcher.

Milicent Cranor...saw it at a TV network.

Gregory Burnham...member of this forum.

...and I think one more. All of them reported:

LIMO TURNING CORNER FROM HOUSTON TO ELM

LIMO COMING TO STOP FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS

Jack

In addition to the individuals listed above, there are a few others whose testimony indicates there was a different or "other" film of the assassination.

Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". Although JFK's head does move forward a couple inches between Z 312 and 313, there is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows the dominant visible motion of JFK being knocked back and to his left.

" Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film."

Link from a post in another thread by Bernice Moore

Abraham Zapruder gave an interview soon after the assassination in which he stated that he started filming as the Limo was turning onto Elm Street. The current film does not include the Limo turning.

* Edited for clarity, April 28, 2011. The edit is to make clear I am aware JFK's head does move forward roughly 2 inches between z312 and z313 on the extant Zapruder film.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Richard Hocking

[Jack White]

You must be new to this. Those who viewed the other film have been discussed for many years. From memory:

Rich DellaRosa...viewed numerous times under classified circumstances.

William Reymond...viewed numerous times courtesy of former intelligence agent.

Dan Marvin...viewed as a CIA training film.

Scott Meyer...Dallas researcher.

Milicent Cranor...saw it at a TV network.

Gregory Burnham...member of this forum.

...and I think one more. All of them reported:

LIMO TURNING CORNER FROM HOUSTON TO ELM

LIMO COMING TO STOP FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS

Jack

In addition to the individuals listed above, there are a few others whose testimony indicates there was a different or "other" film of the assassination.

Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". There is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows JFK being knocked back and to his left.

" Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film."

Link from a post in another thread by Bernice Moore

Abraham Zapruder gave an interview soon after the assassination in which he stated that he started filming as the Limo was turning onto Elm Street. The current film does not include the Limo turning.

THANKS for bringing up these additional mentions of anomalies. Being from 1963, they are extremely strong testimonies!

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

Yes. It appeared to be shot from a very similar position to that seen in the Zapruder film. I tend to believe that it was NOT the "unaltered"

Zapruder film because of certain differences. However, that possibility has not been ruled out. The very high quality of the film is also less

than consistent with what we see in the extant Zapruder film, among other things.

Can you provide the details of when you saw this mysterious other film?

Still waiting for an answer Greg

You can wait until hell freezes over...and them some more. I am not required to answer your pathetic, ill advised, distracting, no-count, out of context, ruminating, blovatious (ask Tink what that one means), meandering, mindless inquiry...or I'd have to "make a report" to YOUR superiors--and then you'd be sorry!

I've been in Hawaii with my bride for our anniversary for the past 10 days and will be here for several more. When I get back...perhaps hell will have frozen over. If not?

Edited June 1, 2011 by Kathy Beckett
removed objectionable phrase