Greg Burnham

Posted for Bernice

[Nt;VanHoesen&BodyBag;PerDH;9/03—sanitized]* p/o to pdf, 12/6/10 *Names connected with TV news staff are redacted for privacy reasons

Email from Doug Horne to me, in late September, 2003, regarding preparation for appearance on a TV news show. Main value: this email succinctly explains the importance of new body bag witness found by ARRB (Van Hoesen), and importance of Boyajian report, with the time of arrival of the body as 6:35 PM.

-----Original Message-----

What this is:

From:

To: Subject: Joan,

Horne, Douglas P

(TV producer) HOT TIPS RE: The Stuff I Gave You

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 8:59 AM

It has been a pleasure working with someone of your professionalism, and with someone so "straight" about what questions were going to be asked. I didn't get any "ambush questions" yesterday, and everything I was asked was a topic which I expected to be discussed based upon the conversations you and I had before the interview. Thank you.

HOT TIP(s):

Boyajian:

We obtained an authenticated copy of a report written by a Marine Sergeant (in charge of the security detail at the morgue) named Roger Boyajian the week after the assassination, in which he states "the casket arrived at 1835;" that's 6:35 PM. We know for a fact that JFK's heavy 435 lb. bronze Dallas Casket (obviously empty) arrived out in front of Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 PM, and that it was not driven around to the morgue until about 7:15. We also know that the official casket team (honor guard) report says they carried the Dallas casket in at "2000" (8 PM). (Yes, we have multiple casket entries going on here, for different audiences. A massive shell game.)

It corroborates 100% the report of Dennis David (from 1975 on) that he met a "cheap, metal shipping casket" at the morgue

One more thing: I forgot to mention that Lifton's hypothesis of 2 different

caskets arriving and 2 different sets of body wrappings---both further proof of

body interception and alteration---were backed up by new evidence obtained

by the ARRB.

To cut to the chase, the Boyajian document "proves" the President's body

arrived before the motorcade from Andrews AFB, thereby "proves" that the

body was intercepted in transit.

[Nt;VanHoesen&BodyBag;PerDH;9/03—mildly sanitized] 2

entrance about 6:45 PM and that it was taken out of a BLACK HEARSE (not a gray Navy ambulance) by "men in suits" (not a military honor guard), and carried into the morgue anteroom by he and his sailors. (Boswell, by the way, told David after the autopsy that the President was in the cheap metal casket that he and his sailors handled. A "shipping casket"...not the bronze, heavy ceremonial casket from Dallas.)

(And. . .In addition. . . )

Another Body Bag Witness

The ARRB also interviewed a fellow named Van Hoesen (one of the embalmers who was present for the whole autopsy), who relayed to us that the President's body was removed form a "body bag." This is critical, since the body was wrapped in sheets, not a body bag, when it left Dallas. Van Hoesen is an additional body bag witness, and corroborates the testimony of med. tech. Paul O'Connor, who told the HSCA about the body bag in 1977.

Now, I know you will not have time to cover these two things above (casket and body bag) unless your show gets extended and you get 90 minutes instead of 60 minutes. But if you do get more time, you should use this information.

Well, that's it! I won't bother you with any more new information. I know it's getting too late in the game for that. But I wanted you and Josh** to know about these things and give you the opportunity to work them into the script if you think it's a good idea.

Thanks again for all your interest, and for your professionalism. Doug ** Pseudonym for staff producer

ps. Greg they are not uploading for me, i shall be sending them to you, if you would be so kind as to post when you can, thankyou...i think it may be moi, and my good for nothing lap, and or the Gremlin,together again...he loves pulling this crap...

[/font]thank you peoples for your time...best b

Bernice,

I tried, but the files are too large to upload. I may be able to break them up to make them smaller. I have to eat dinner first, though.

Posted at the request of Bernice...from David Lifton:

In a nutshell, Occam's Razor states:

"The simple explanation is preferable to the complex explanation so long as the simple explanation is adequate to the evidence."

It is a valid parameter within which to make critical judgments. However, in the JFK case, Occam's Razor has been misused probably more often than it has been used properly. Caution in its application is advised.

"Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes."

First of all, this author's assertion is extremely ambiguous. But, even if taken at face value...it is not necessarily true. There need only be one exception to his self-serving "rule" and it becomes a false statement. For instance, throughout America on a daily basis robberies occur. The vast majority of these robberies involve at least 2 perpetrators, but usually no more than that. By definition, THAT is a conspiracy. Yet, do we delude ourselves about Watergate? Would you agree that Watergate represents a very extensive conspiracy involving DOZENS (at the very least) of participants? Of course it did. Does that make it "less realistic" (simply by virtue of the number of co-conspirators involved) than the probability of a robbery being the result of a conspiracy even though it only involved 2 co-conspirators?

Hi Greg.

That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson.

Why do it ?

could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed.

Why? They had the ACTUAL FILM? Who cares what ANY OTHER SUBSTITUTE FILM would offer--when you have the original? Indeed, they had the original film itself and the original camera itself.

To test the single bullet theory alignment.

Speculating, Robin...?? But, then again, so am I!

Bill, Bill, Bill...I mean Robert, Robert, Robert....

Who do you think created this re-enactment footage [see below]? Was it an amateur opportunist named Zapruder or a professional team paid by the US Government? You said you didn't think the "other film" was Government sponsored. Upon what do you base your unsupported assertion?

Again, WHY did the US Government's Investigative Apparatus need a RE-CONSTRUCTION FILM to begin with IF they had ACTUAL, real time footage of the crime as it happened! Why?

Why did they NEED THIS?

I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined...

Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with?

This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one?

Ask yourself this: Why would the authorities ever NEED OR WANT to create a "film" of the crime when they already had a film (Zapruder's) of the crime in their possession? But, even assuming they sometimes did create film re-enactments in 1963 under specific circumstances (which is a stretch)--still-- why would they this time... since they already had an ACTUAL film of the crime now?? If Zapruder already filmed the crime, why "fake a film" of it? In a criminal investigation such a re-creation would be useless as it would be inadmissible in a court room. How could a re-enactment (on film) of a crime help when an actual film of the event is available?

Sounds like it has more to do with the alleged film of the assassination than it has to do with the assassination.

Just for "grins and giggles" watch the YouTube below. Imagine the authorities saying: "Let's make a re-construction film of this robbery that we already have on ACTUAL FILM from the convenience store because it will..." -- SHEESH, I can't even END THAT SENTENCE because it is too idiotic to contemplate long enough to come up with a stupid enough scenario! There is no justification for it. None.

Bill,

Any "reconstruction film" that was so poorly shot in terms of misrepresenting the content would have been less than useless. Why would a so-called "reconstruction film" include so many errant events? Why would a "reconstruction film" fail so miserably to "reconstruct" what happened that day? If the events, as shown in such a reconstruction film, never happened, then WHY FILM such useless fictitious content in the first place? According to your theory, what event were they attempting to reconstruct by such a film? According to you, much of what was shown in the "reconstruction film" never happened. If so, it is such a lousy representation of reality, why would anyone call it a "RECONSTRUCTION FILM" ??

I just spent almost a week in Dallas with my wife, Julie. We visited Jack and his lovely wife, Sue, for a day while we were there. I can assure you all that it is quite evident that such idiotic ad hominem attacks reveal more about those who launch the attack than they reveal about the one who is attacked.

Sounds like you need a sgt-at-arms...

Quote:

i have no way of knowing how the positions of Police motorcyclists Jackson and Chaney were

Martin.

I don't see jackson anywhere in this Z-frame.

Jackson continued NORTH on Houston past ELM? --He didn't negotiate the turn onto Elm. Perhaps he couldn't have without being run over by the X-100...

That's hysterical, Craig! Mack claims to have first isolated that figure and he found it without any enhancement. It has been pointed out to us in the polaroid without any enhancement beyond magnification. Even without enhancement its clarity rivals that of the man on the pedestal.

(bolding mine.)

Great, show us those "unaltered" images and back up your point. This should be interesting indeed.

BTW, while you are at it please show us...in detail...why the Moorman lens/film/fstop/shutterspeed/ stablilty combination HAD THE REQUIRED lp/mm resolution to record this "detail" you claim is present in the area of badgeman. Without this answer, all of your mutterings are just that...meanigless mutterings.

Your answers should prove to be quite illuminating as to your abilities in this regard.

Here's a better suggestion, Craig. Let's have MACK post the image THAT HE FIRST NOTICED behind the wall--BEFORE he had ever pointed it out to Jack White. Let's look at that image, Craig. I'm sure Gary still remembers exactly the location since he discovered it. That way, I don't misrepresent Gary's work inadvertently.

The alleged Sitzman photo(s) and/or frame(s) are inconclusive, IMO. However, even assuming that they are pictures of her--still--she is NOT the person who FILMED THE ASSASSINATION. Abraham Zapruder allegedly did the filming. Except, we can not confirm the presence of the man through clear photographic records; we cannot confirm that the man who claims to have filmed the assassination was even there from the film record. Yet we are expected to accept the "film record that he allegedly shot" as authentic despite inconsistencies found therein. This is weird logic, to be sure.

The film record does not definitively establish that Zapruder was the photographer that day. Why?

Zappy apologists would have us believe that it is because of the "lack of reliability" of the film stock, camera quality, skill of the photographers, distance from target (Zappy) etc., that obscures Zapruder's presence. We should therefore IGNORE the lack of evidence and instead we should embrace the official story: Zapruder was there. But, Mary Moorman took her polaroid within an acceptable proximity of the subject. In fact, Gary Mack claims that he located Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid! Tell me this, Gary: Why is it that even though Badgeman is obscured by foliage, by shadow, and is tiny behind the wall -- by comparison -- to the man claiming to be Zapruder who is standing on the pedestal, who is not hiding behind a wall, who's not in shadows, who's in BROAD DAYLIGHT, and he's elevated on top of a PERCH--yet, the detail in Badgeman's image is much higher than the detail in the alleged image of Zapruder! If we can discern Badgeman's detail, Gary, certainly we should be able to discern Zapruder's detail, right? C'mon, admit it... It's beyond obvious.

Yet, these same people fail to apply the same standard to the Zapruder film itself!

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

That's hysterical, Craig! Mack claims to have first isolated that figure and he found it without any enhancement. It has been pointed out to us in the polaroid without any enhancement beyond magnification. Even without enhancement its clarity rivals that of the man on the pedestal.

The alleged Sitzman photo(s) and/or frame(s) are inconclusive, IMO. However, even assuming that they are pictures of her--still--she is NOT the person who FILMED THE ASSASSINATION. Abraham Zapruder allegedly did the filming. Except, we can not confirm the presence of the man through clear photographic records; we cannot confirm that the man who claims to have filmed the assassination was even there from the film record. Yet we are expected to accept the "film record that he allegedly shot" as authentic despite inconsistencies found therein. This is weird logic, to be sure.

The film record does not definitively establish that Zapruder was the photographer that day. Why?

Zappy apologists would have us believe that it is because of the "lack of reliability" of the film stock, camera quality, skill of the photographers, distance from target (Zappy) etc., that obscures Zapruder's presence. We should therefore IGNORE the lack of evidence and instead we should embrace the official story: Zapruder was there. But, Mary Moorman took her polaroid within an acceptable proximity of the subject. In fact, Gary Mack claims that he located Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid! Tell me this, Gary: Why is it that even though Badgeman is obscured by foliage, by shadow, and is tiny behind the wall -- by comparison -- to the man claiming to be Zapruder who is standing on the pedestal, who is not hiding behind a wall, who's not in shadows, who's in BROAD DAYLIGHT, and he's elevated on top of a PERCH--yet, the detail in Badgeman's image is much higher than the detail in the alleged image of Zapruder! If we can discern Badgeman's detail, Gary, certainly we should be able to discern Zapruder's detail, right? C'mon, admit it... It's beyond obvious.

Yet, these same people fail to apply the same standard to the Zapruder film itself!

Tom, what you describe is a more extreme form of what is happening in the UK.

What is interesting is that it is the so-called "communist" states that have the best record of keeping labour costs very low (that is because they control the trade unions). In fact, what you have in China is more like a fascist or state capitalist system.

I think the only answer to the problem is protectionism. It will create inflation but it will reduce unemployment in the advanced economies.

I think you are very likely correct, John--regarding protectionism being the most effective, at least short term, fix to the high unemployment rates. Such a policy is highly unlikely, IMO, in the States--due to the political climate being advanced by the White House. If a Libertarian was elected president in 2012, it would perhaps be the FIRST item on the agenda.

Thanks for the clarification, David, and sorry if I seemed grouchy. Sometimes the written word "reads" differently that it "speaks" ...

I think you raise valid questions. I have no answers to them, though. The best I can do is say, "Perhaps..., but I don't know." There is no way of knowing whether or not those who saw a "non-Zapruder Film" each saw the same film or whether what they saw, even if edited, was from the same film. The films may have each originated from slightly different locations or not. Another important consideration is that those who saw the "other film" were not comparing it to the Zapruder Film. In other words, if such a film surfaced today, we would all be looking for specific items in it to compare to the Zapruder Film since we are so familiar with the Zapruder Film and because we have analyzed it so thoroughly. However, I don't find it suspect that some of the details that would help in such a comparison can't been recalled by those who saw the other film, as they weren't analyzing the film at the time of viewing it. They were focused on content not authenticity.

Greg

THE Z FILM IS AN EDITED VERSION OF THE "OTHER FILM".

I agree with Jack, what Jack just said is the key

I agree, provided there isn't an alternate edit of the "other film."

Huh? What does THAT mean: "An alternate edit of the other film" -- huh? I have no idea what that means. Sorry.

Has anybody, including Rich DellaRosa, reported seeing the limo turn in an alternate version?

Yes. However, there might be some differences in recollections--which is to be expected.

The limo comes into view while it is still on Houston as it approaches Elm. The "other film" shows an extremely WIDE turn from Houston onto Elm. The limo almost strikes the curb on the northwest corner of Houston and Elm, in front of the TSBD, and is forced to "slow down to a crawl" there, too--almost STOP--in order to negotiate the turn. (Even if nothing else had happened that day, that is a poor reflection on SS Presidential Protection Detail protocol!)

There is no "break" in filming during the entire sequence.

The limo drifts toward the SOUTH side of Elm at approximately the point where it is even (give or take) with the Stemmon's Freeway sign. The limo comes to a COMPLETE STOP before reaching the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll, during the head shot. It comes to an additional "rolling stop" (less than 5 miles/hour) shortly thereafter at the approximate spot directly in front of the street level "storm drain" on Elm.

More than one Secret Service Agent climbed out of the Queen Mary with automatic weapons drawn, apparently looking to return fire. The sequence of events as depicted in the "Happy Zappy--Should Be Rated X for Violence--Cartoon" are contrived. The events are depicted in a very surreal manner. One needs to "slow down" the events as seen on the Zapruder film so that they conform with REALITY. We all have a "sense" of reality. We all have a sense that there is something wrong with the extant Zapruder film--unless...we're in denial.

The quality of this "other film" is extremely high. There is nothing "jittery" in it. The "bottom section" of the film doesn't drop out of sight--and It doesn't cause one to wonder why the film seems weird. As far as I can tell, it is the recordation of an event that was captured on film by PROFESSIONALS and it bears the signature of those with knowledge beyond that of an "amateur photographer"; knowledge far beyond that of one who "just happened" to be in the right place at the wrong time. IMO, whoever shot the "other film" was in the "right place at the right time" but perhaps for ALL OF THE WRONG REASONS.

Sorry to seem cryptic - I was suggesting that there may be a different "cut" or assemblage of the elements seen in "the Zapruder film," filmed from the camera allegedly used by Zapruder, so that that might constitute "another film." A virgin copy of the footage used to create "the Z-film" would also be an "other" film, though an original.

I haven't seen it, obviously, but I'm willing to hear accounts of a separate, professionally shot film. Perhaps it was taken from within the south pavillion of the pergola, with Zapruder serving as a decoy, and also an inhibitor of access to the pergola,* like Bill Hester seemed to be. Did that squarish case that Hester was running about with contain photo equipment, or was it meant to carry the camera or exposed film away in?

In my brief, clumsy way, I was trying to make a distinction between any possible alternate versions of the Z-film and the professionally shot "other" film that Rich DellaRosa described.

I thoroughly agree that the extant Z-film looks cartoonish, and has discontinuities that the eye rebels at. There's hand-cranked WW I-era footage of motorcades that "flow" more naturally.

Can the reported "wide turn" be reconciled with what we see in the Towner film?

*"Don't bother that nice man. He can't even stand up there without that lady helping him." Anybody that wanted to get to the south pavillion would have to conquer such a nicety, or get past the Hesters.

What is it about this that you don't get?

NOBODY WHO SAW THE OTHER FILM EVER SAID IT WAS THE ZAPRUDER FILM--or that it was ANY VERSION of the Zapruder film. OR THAT IT WAS THE UNEDITED VERSION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

Huh? No, that is not my position. How did you interpret ANYTHING I have ever said to mean that?

It was a fair question. I too read those postings of long ago and none of them that I recall ever said that the 'other film' was an edit job from an even longer running film. My memory was that the alleged 'other film' showed everything the current Zapruder film shows with the exception that it had the limo turn on it. I recall raising the point at that time that the limo turn was non-eventful according to the Tina Towner film. The first shot heard was taken after Betzner had just taken his photo (Z186). So when you take the position that no one claiming to have seen the 'other film' ever said that it was the full version, then I want to know how you derived at such a conclusion.

Bill

THE Z FILM IS AN EDITED VERSION OF THE "OTHER FILM".

I agree with Jack, what Jack just said is the key

I agree, provided there isn't an alternate edit of the "other film."

Huh? What does THAT mean: "An alternate edit of the other film" -- huh? I have no idea what that means. Sorry.

Has anybody, including Rich DellaRosa, reported seeing the limo turn in an alternate version?

Yes. However, there might be some differences in recollections--which is to be expected.

The limo comes into view while it is still on Houston as it approaches Elm. The "other film" shows an extremely WIDE turn from Houston onto Elm. The limo almost strikes the curb on the northwest corner of Houston and Elm, in front of the TSBD, and is forced to "slow down to a crawl" there, too--almost STOP--in order to negotiate the turn. (Even if nothing else had happened that day, that is a poor reflection on SS Presidential Protection Detail protocol!)

There is no "break" in filming during the entire sequence.

The limo drifts toward the SOUTH side of Elm at approximately the point where it is even (give or take) with the Stemmon's Freeway sign. The limo comes to a COMPLETE STOP before reaching the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll, during the head shot. It comes to an additional "rolling stop" (less than 5 miles/hour) shortly thereafter at the approximate spot directly in front of the street level "storm drain" on Elm.

More than one Secret Service Agent climbed out of the Queen Mary with automatic weapons drawn, apparently looking to return fire. The sequence of events as depicted in the "Happy Zappy--Should Be Rated X for Violence--Cartoon" are contrived. The events are depicted in a very surreal manner. One needs to "slow down" the events as seen on the Zapruder film so that they conform with REALITY. We all have a "sense" of reality. We all have a sense that there is something wrong with the extant Zapruder film--unless...we're in denial.

The quality of this "other film" is extremely high. There is nothing "jittery" in it. The "bottom section" of the film doesn't drop out of sight--and It doesn't cause one to wonder why the film seems weird. As far as I can tell, it is the recordation of an event that was captured on film by PROFESSIONALS and it bears the signature of those with knowledge beyond that of an "amateur photographer"; knowledge far beyond that of one who "just happened" to be in the right place at the wrong time. IMO, whoever shot the "other film" was in the "right place at the right time" but perhaps for ALL OF THE WRONG REASONS.

Was there a double for Sitzman as well? And when they walked into the shelter and stood with the Hester's ... did the Hester's then become part of this game of substitution??

Bill,

Perhaps you can provide us with a CLEAR photo or film frame that unmistakably and dis-ambiguously proves that Zapruder and Sitzman were, in fact, where they claim to have been that day? I have yet to see ANY visual evidence that supports their claim. There appears to be someone on the pedestal, but it is impossible to determine who that person(s) was, IMO. If you can provide proof...that would help.

So is it your position for the record that you believe the alleged 'other film' was altered or had been edited? If so, what do you base your opinion on??

Thanks!

Bill Miller

Huh? No, that is not my position. How did you interpret ANYTHING I have ever said to mean that?

This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything.

However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer.

Well let us consider some things .... No one has ever time stamped the date and fellow witnesses who watched this so-called other film from what I recall. I can remember where I was and who I was with when far less shocking moments occurred at the schools and events I have attended and yet such data has not been forthcoming from these witnesses. I can remember seeing the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show, the Zfilm on Goodnite America, Elvis from Hawaii ... where I was and who I was with when I saw each event. Had I of seen JFK's murder in vivid living color as some of these alleged witnesses have claimed, I would expect for information from them.

Has anyone bothered to run their Bell and Howell camera for the duration of the Zapruder film to see how much of their wind did they use up? And what could possibly be missing from the Zapruder film as we know it ... the shooting didn't start until after Betzner took his photo, thus what would be missed that isn't seen on Zapruder's first generation copy print?

Bill

Huh?

That is about as good a job of attempting to distract from the subject as I've recently seen. Anyway, what I said was that I disagree with your characterization of what the "other film's witnesses" have claimed. None claimed to have seen an "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film.

This is, at least, the second time (if we include Toni Foster) in this thread that you have misrepresented what was said by witnesses.

Hi Duncan,

I think if one has the opportunity to look at the Nov25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine, they do so.

I recommend they look at Page 40-41 which comprises Z frames 193,206 and 222-231.

Then turn to Page 42 and flip back and forth between the two pages, looking at the overall frames on each page.

If it doesn't hit you, bend page 42 in half and compare "side by side" with page 40.

You'll know what my answer to your question is.

chris

Are you sure you aren't talking about the back cover of MAD Magazine ......

Bill,

Do you even understand the point?

Or, did this one go over your head, just as the Altgen's flag logo did.

Instead of a snide comment, why not comment on the Life magazine frame differences.

Or, do you not see a difference between pages.

My wife saw it immediately and she has no interest in this case at all.

chris

Hey Chris,

I have that edition of LIFE very handy. I'll look at the frames published and try to see that to which you are referring.

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, if there is more than one "other film" those who claim they saw "it" may have, in fact, all seen the same film or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.

Hello Greg,

I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film.

Bill

This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything.

However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer.

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, assuming that there is more than one "other film", -- those who claim that they saw "it" -- may have, in fact, all seen the same film...or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.