Greg Burnham

It sure is. Not only is it the ultimate insult to the memory of the 35th President of the United States, it is an insult to "We the People" of the United States.

I've never seen this before in my life. *It's interesting to "hear" the sound of the projector as the film is running.* That's where the similarity ends, though. EDIT: * I was listening through the head phones without them being on my head. From my desk it sounded like a film projector running. After I put them on it no longer did. Never mind.

Welcome to the forum, Thomas. If this post is a fair sample of you will offer in the future, I look forward to reading your contributions.

Hi David, Excellent post. Even the extant films show the absolute and utter failure of the President's Protection Detail. This failure is not only seen in the loss of "the client" (which is the ultimate failure), but it's also evident in their gross departure from everything that they have been taught to do in a similar circumstance. Your observation that: ...is spot on. Moreover, the agents should have reacted to the very fact that the client vehicle was about to take a 90+ degree turn as it approached Elm from Houston. They should have been off the Queen Mary prior to the start of the turn--and at the first "sound" of anything out of the ordinary, i.e. "popping, cracking, snapping, firecrackers or backfires"--swarming the vehicle and shielding the occupants. They did none of these things even in the extant films available. ...

That is a very specious question, in my opinion, Glenn. Forgive me if I misinterpreted it. But, as written, your question appears disingenuous. If there was indeed a conspiracy, it makes sense that those with something to gain from covering it up would in fact cover it up. That includes altering film evidence. However, speaking for myself, I would very much prefer to live in a country where such a horrific national nightmare did NOT exist. I would prefer it if there had been no conspiracy at all, as that would be a much more comforting world, to say the least, in which to live. I have no vested interest in "proving" there was a conspiracy if there was, in fact, none present. So, where the "cover up" artists have a vested in interest in fabricating the film to conceal the conspiracy, I don't see the vested interest of a conspiracy researcher in a similar light. The "cover up" artist is insincere, BY DEFINITION, while the researcher is not. True, there could be exceptions, but generally the latter has no motivation to fabricate the existence of a very UGLY world in which to raise his children. It makes no sense.

Hi John, Perhaps someone will step up to the plate and deliver a well done animation. If the "other film" is in the possession of someone with a sense of duty to history, perhaps you are correct and they will upload it. It's funny, in a way, but I (perhaps naively) never even considered the possibility before it was raised here that the "other film" might be anonymously uploaded one day. I hope so. It would end the debate over alteration, but more importantly, the debate over conspiracy would expire once and for all.

G'day John, You said: "When I did that with the Zapruder/Nix/Muchmore films as a guide, it felt like a cartoon. Everything glided down Elm Street like water down an aqueduct; it was over before I -- if I had been there in 1963 -- would have even known that anything had even happened." [additional emphasis added] Thanks for that comparison. Very apropos, indeed. There is something that's "too even, too smooth, too easy" about it all...Even intuitively, people can just sense it. Prouty described the entire "change in administration" the same way: "too even, too easy, too smooth" -- as if it were expected and planned for in advance.

In all due respect guys... Dale Meyers "re-created" a bullsh*t scenario with computer graphics so far removed from the "real deal" as to be laughable if it weren't so tragic. That's one reason I'm so repulsed by the suggestion of yet another "re-creation" of the event. It just "rubs me wrong" --that's all.

Thanks Robin. I've seen the sniper window re-enactment shots, but I haven't seen the NIX, Muchmore, Bronson, etc., POV "re-enactment" films. That is very interesting, indeed--in light of this discussion. So now we have a "crime scene" [could be a 7-11] in which the perpetrators were captured on several films simultaneously, in real time-- ...but, the authorities thought that they could make a "better version" --? Or perhaps a more "accurate version"? -- than the actual films themselves showed?

Greg, I could not help myself but being somewhat surprised by one of the passages in that interview: "I'm not a conspiracy theorist...". Please explain? Let me answer you with a question of my own (for starters) before answering more directly. Glenn, if I characterized you as "One who believes that crimes are usually not the result of a conspiracy for the most part..." -- Would I be mistaken about your beliefs? Or would you say that I essentially understand your view? Or "other" answer? The answer to your question is bigger the the question asked. The crime of conspiracy is probably the MOST common of all crimes because it only requires 2 people, by definition. It is not required that more than one person even be involved in the actual commission of the immediate crime as long as someone knowingly "helped" -- in any way -- before, during, or after the fact. Not all conspiracies come to light, but many do. The majority of crimes committed in this country [the US] -- beyond petty crimes -- involve conspiracy. So, there is no need for me or anyone to "theorize" about the likelihood of conspiracies. They are a fact of life. They are "the rule" not the exception. They are unfortunate, but very much a part of the world as we know it (and that we must change, if possible). I am mystified how anyone, in the year 2011 (or as grandma used to say: "In this day and age"), is surprised by the idea of "conspiracy" being a very real, albeit unfortunate, state of affairs.

Hi John. No offense, but it rather seems like a parlor game to me, at first glance. No thanks. I find it interesting that there EVER were any "re-enactment films" of the JFK assassination ever made by anyone. Don't you? That includes the FBI, DALLAS PD, CIA, SECRET SERVICE, etc. -- Why would they need a "re-enactment film" of the crime when they had the ORIGINAL film available? Did they also re-enact the NIX Film? How about the Muchmore Film? Paschal? Bronson, etc.? Imagine watching the TV Show: "COPS" and that the producers showed an actual surveillance camera's capture of a crime in progress at a convenience store, like a 7-11, for example. Imagine that the authorities decided to make a "re-enactment" film of the crime in order to "help" them figure out how it actually happened...AND they filmed from the same location as was the ACTUAL film of the crime? But, that is exactly what happened. "THEY" -- filmed a re-enactment film of a crime for which they already had THE REAL DEAL! Why the re-enactment film at all?

Indeed.

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.

As to your first question: Yes. Second question: Yes. Third question: Yes.

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.

Michael, Thanks for the info and (abbreviated) review. I look forward to the read. Coming from you, I'm sure the recommendation will be more than worth it.

Good for you! And welcome to the forum.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Well said, Daniel. I think the Agency was fairly offended that someone (Stone) had the audacity, indeed had the ability, to play the game better than they do. Stone employs some very skillful devices in his films that occasionally waft the "signature of trade craft" seamlessly therein. It is an art, to be sure.

Jim Fetzer interviewed Jesse and me on his radio show, The Real Deal, about a week ago. Jesse spoke about "63 Documents" and I spoke about the "other" film. Link: Ventura & Burnham on The Real Deal

That is an extremely compelling argument, Jim. The absence of Godfrey McHugh from the front seat coupled with the absolute dereliction of duty by both Greer and Kellerman--among the other things--may, indeed, speak volumes.

Bernie, You and Tom are, of course, correct. I was really of a different mind back then. If the same happened today, I would surely disapprove with a great deal of vigor. I am not now nor was I ever a Reagan fan. However, like I said, back then I did agree with the action. Now, looking back, I believe it was wrong and I was wrong. Thanks for pointing this out. It's a bit embarrassing, truth be told. Sorry that I didn't make my position clearer, but the title of this thread was "I got sucked in, how many of you did?" -- IOW: I too got sucked in.

And I've done quite a bit of shooting...