Glenn Viklund

The SBT is often declaired impossible due to the perceived angles of this one shot. Let's forget about Stone's theories for a moment. I have been looking into the ballistic scenario for a while, not in depth. But still. Most, if not all of those explanations which refutes the SBT refer to problems with the angles. So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle. Is that really so?

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..

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".

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

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. That's OK, Greg. Perhaps it is a somewhat specious question. But do you really think it is that far fetched? Would you not agree that LNs would dismiss such a film out of hand? Or that the CT community generally speaking would embrace it? I surely don't have to tell you about how many similar instances there has been in the past related to other subjects of the JFK assassination.. After having followed a couple of forums more closely over the last few years, I'd say the odds for this are very low.

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. Assuming it exists and that it's authenticity can be established. The thought of such a procedure is indeed interesting - would those who now claim the Z-film is tampered with, instead claim that this film is authentic?

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?

Rich Dellarosa's version, as captured in an interview:

sorry, screw up.

I am, Greg - and I was a year ago as well. But thanks for you answers. This is not personal vs you, but this entire story has gaps and holes and inconsistensies that just do not make sense. That's all.

Greg, I applaud you for that unquestionably more than forthcoming answer! :lol: Thanks a million!

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?

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?

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.

Another good question, no doubt.

Stephen, This is just another example of Judyth Baker's true character. She has now researched enough about you to start her character assassination campaign, as she always does with those who expose her fantasies. She tried this with me a year ago - enthusiastically supported by Fetzer - and now you're up for the same kind of treatment. It's Judyth Baker at her best; nasty, vindictive and unscrupulous. Edit: Spelling.

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.

Steve, As named by Jack White, below. Jack, Well, this doesn't have anything to do with me. Would you not agree that the question of why this "other" film is not a subject of research - at least as far as I'm aware - is peculiar? Considering the claimed contents of this film, I find this very odd. The Z-film has rendered a mountain of research, the other film - none? Dean So what's stopping this 'other researcher' from stepping forward?

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.

Fetzer once again shows his inept powers of deduction. The man is shot, and immediately falls left, where do you think the mass of blood, pulled by gravity, will go? This is certainly no indication of a shot from the front exiting the rear left. Jim if you really taught critical thinking, you need to be handing out some form of rebate..... Indeed, Mike. Not only did JFK fell to his left, for all we know he stayed in a leftward position for several minutes while the limo was on it's way to Parkland. Another fantastic Fetzer-conclusion, the man who is endlessly bullying everyone else about incompetence.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick to try to ridicule it. The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network. Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed. It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible. It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. Jack The conclusion still is that no hard proof of the existence of this "other" film has ever been brought forward? What do you mean HARD PROOF? Seven witnesses in concord would be considered hard evidence in a court of law. Jack In this case, frames from this film would certainly be a good start. As Josiah and others points out, witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with lying. But the fact that there are only witness accounts for the existence of such a film is not convincing. As someone else said earlier in this thread, extra ordinary claims demands extra ordinary evidence. It is an understatement that the alleged contents of this "other" film are extra ordinary. Moreover, I agree with Jim D. here. Had such a film been shown on television this would, of course, have created a sensation. But perhaps you also have an idea as to why, for example, frames are so hard to get? Or why there seems to be such secrecy about this whole thing, still? Those things makes this even more suspicious.

HI GLENN, YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN WILLIAM REYMOND'S INTERVIEW WITH JIM MARRS ON THE OTHER ZAPRUDER FILM...B dr jim...you left out the motorcyc;ist chaney in the differences seen in the zapruder, in your summation at the top of page 11.....fwiw...thanks b Thanks, Bernice.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick to try to ridicule it. The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network. Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed. It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible. It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. Jack The conclusion still is that no hard proof of the existence of this "other" film has ever been brought forward?

Sorry, this question had already been answered by Jim D.

OK Greg, thanks for your answer. What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred? Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.