Bernice Moore

Glen many of your answers and leads i believe are posted within the DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"? thread, also look into William Reymond as far as you can....b

Is this it David ??? b

Zapruders donate JFK film, rightsGift may secure future of Sixth Floor Museum

01/26/2000

By Mark Wrolstad / The Dallas Morning News

The Zapruder family, longtime caretaker of the famous home movies of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, has given its last original duplicate of the film and the copyright to its coveted images to the Sixth Floor Museum.

Gary Mack and Megan Bryant (background) examine the Kennedy assassination film and case at The Sixth Floor Museum.

The donation represents a potential windfall in licensing income and prestige for the 11-year-old Dallas museum.

For the museum, whose main attraction is its location including Lee Harvey Oswald's crow's nest, the acquisition of the Zapruder print and related materials solidifies its stature as a destination for researchers, as well as its financial future, officials said.

Jeff West, executive director of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza (left) and Gary Mack, an archivist at the museum, look through transparencies of the Zapruder film.

For the survivors of Abraham Zapruder, the Dallas dressmaker who took his 8 mm camera when he walked up a grassy rise in Dealey Plaza and stepped into history on Nov. 22, 1963, the donation ends decades as keepers of America's best-known sequence of amateur movie-making.

And for the copy of the 26-second film clip itself - as well as the other film copies, frame-by-frame slides and stills contained in what the museum has dubbed the "Zapruder Collection" - the gift represents a homecoming, right next to the spot where it was created and where a nation was altered.

"This is a coup," said Jeff West, the museum's executive director, who planned an official announcement Wednesday. "It's truly transformational for us, and it secures our future, not just financially but historically."

Mr. Zapruder's heirs, including son Henry of Washington, D.C., and daughter Myrna Ries of Dallas, announced their intention to transfer the copyright's ownership to a public institution in August, after an arbitration panel ordered the U.S. government to pay the family $16 million, plus interest, for the original film.

The original has been stored at the National Archives since 1975, when Time Inc. returned the film and the copyright to the family. Time Inc. had bought the rights in 1963.

Mr. Zapruder ordered three so-called first-generation copies of the film when it was processed the day of the assassination. The two he gave to the Secret Service also now rest at the archives.

Months of discussion

The third copy, the only one still privately owned, became the Sixth Floor's property when an agreement was signed Dec. 30, capping four months of discussions.

Mr. West and an associate carried the film in an archival box on a flight to Dallas nine days ago, along with other materials.

He said the negotiations began after he heard the copyright needed a new home and he found Henry Zapruder's office number.

"I told him, 'We think we're the guys who should take this on,' " Mr. West said. "It was not a subtle conversation."

A federal board created by Congress to collect and make public all assassination-related films and records took ownership of the original Zapruder film in 1997.

But the government let the heirs retain the copyright, which brings fees for public uses of the film's images in documentaries or publications.

Licensing fees earned about $879,000 for the family from 1976 to 1997, according to estimates made for the arbitration panel.

In a written statement about the museum gift, the heirs again emphasized their efforts to keep the film from being used in ways they considered exploitive.

Exploitation fears

"The guiding principle for the use of the film, established by our father and grandfather at the outset in 1963, was the balance of respect for the sensitive nature of the images with appropriate access by the public," the statement read.

The family said it chose the Sixth Floor because of confidence that its administrators "share our values."

Mr. West pledged that his institution will meet the high standards set by the filmmaker and his heirs.

"His fear was that his film would end up on a T-shirt or a coffee mug, all the exploitive things that we're concerned about," Mr. West said.

An independent appraiser is estimating the value of the gift. Mr. West wouldn't estimate how much the film's licensing might continue to generate.

Jamie Silverberg, the Zapruders' attorney for 12 years, has been hired by the Sixth Floor partly to help with the licensing and indicated the film will continue to be a moneymaker.

"There seems to be an unyielding historical and public interest in the film," he said.

He said the Zapruder heirs considered options other than the Sixth Floor and again demonstrated what he called their "immense sense of civic responsibility."

Critic of decision

Richard Stolley, now a senior editorial adviser for Time Inc., disagreed with the heirs' decision to license a high-tech examination of the Zapruder film in a $15 home video in 1998.

As an editor for Life magazine in 1963, Mr. Stolley bought the original film from Abe Zapruder.

"When I first talked to him, it was his fervent and emotional desire that the film not be exploited in any way," Mr. Stolley said. "I think the Zapruder family has finally done the right thing and honored the man who took the film.

"The museum is where it belongs. In a strange way, for it to wind up in a building about 200 feet from where this garment-maker stood and took the pictures is a kind of historical irony and completeness that doesn't often happen."

Part of the 1,900-item donation may be exhibited later this year, but the material must first be cataloged.

Gary Mack, the museum's archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch - oversized transparencies of each Zapruder frame believed to have been made in 1963 or '64.

"These may be in better condition than the original film is today," he said. "We may have something that is better or sharper. Who knows?"

[ Metro: D-FW | Metro columnists | Dallasnews.com ]

©1999 The Dallas Morning NewsThis site is best viewed using Netscape 4.0 or IE 4.0.

hi Robin; As has been mentioned, JFK fell to his left towards onto, Jackie's lap, that would cause the heavy blood flow to the left from the head wound,imo take care b

mike quote.''you are about as low as they come. The comical thing is that you do not even believe your own crap, you simply do it to make a buck. The sad thing is, the people of this good forum are your victims.

They deserve better than you Jimbo. No matter if they agree with my position on the assassination or not.

''

Mike you are talking daft, if you were not so much the ''gasbag ' you would not post such daft responses, you accuse dr.Jim of simply to make a buck''....for your information, he has for many, many years contributed any profits from his books, to further the research, he has helped support JFK Forums, and paid transportation for manys a young researcher to the Lancer conference,and others, who could not afford to do so on his own, in order to present their new updated research,for one and all. also answer me this, if say you, daffy or not wrote a book, you mean to tell me, it would be with the given that it make no profit, only cost you, money.....it would appear much better for if you got up to date before you make such accusations,b..

ian i tried to attach the shoot him down document,but the forum is still not uploading photos or documents, perhaps next time...b

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Garrison_Investigation

Mary Ferrell; The Garrison Investigation.

ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS lists several critical evidence issues seemingly obstructed by the Warren Commission and later congressional committees in the House and Senate.

While attorney and author Mark Lane was researching his book Citizen's Dissent, he broke a major story involving prior knowledge of the assassination, according to New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.

"...he [Lane] happened to meet a former FBI employee named William S. Walter. During their conversation Walter mentioned that on Novermber 17, 1963—five days before the assassination—he had been the night clerk on duty at the Bureau's New Orleans office when a warning about a possible presidential assassination attempt came chattering through on the teletype machine. Walter immediately called five agents and considered his work done."

According to Garrison, "In 1976, Walter gave a copy of the text of the FBI telex to the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania. After the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed Lane also obtained a copy of the warning telex and made it available to me. This is what it said:

"URGENT: 1:45 AM EST 11-17-63 HLF 1 PAGE

TO ALL SACS:

FROM: DIRECTOR

THREAT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS TEXAS NOVEMBER 22 DASH TWENTY THREE NINETEEN SIXTY THREE. MISC INFORMATION CONCERNING. INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE BUREAUS [sIC] BUREAU HAS DETERMINED THAT A MILITANT REVOLUTIONARY GROUP MAY ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON HIS PROPOSED TRIP TO DALLAS TEXAS NOVEMBER TWENTY TWO DASH TWENTY THREE NINETEEN SIXTY THREE. ALL RECEIVING OFFICES SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT ALL CIS, PCIS LOGICAL RACE AND HATE GROUP INFORMANTS AND DETERMINE IF ANY BASIS FOR THREAT. BUREAU SHOULD BE KEPT ADVISED OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS BY TELETYPE. OTHER OFFICES HAVE BEEN ADVISED. END AND ACK PLS."

"...when the assassination occurred, he [Walter] was eating lunch but immediately ran back to the New Orleans Bureau office. In the file he found the warning telex along with a duplicate which had soon followed it. At the time he copied the exact phraseology of the telex warning and kept it. Shortly afterwards he checked the file again to see if the warning was still there. It had been removed."

"The telex had been most explicit, naming both a place and dates for the attempt to assassinate the President. It was addressed to all special agents in charge, which meant every on the country, including Dallas. And yet the FBI did nothing. There is no record that it notified anyone—not even the Secret Service, which as the President's bodyguard should have been informed immediately....nearly five years had passed since the assassination. But in that time none of the five agents Walter had called that morning of November 17 ever hinted to the American people or to the Warren Commission that the FBI had received a specific warning about the assassination five days before it occurred."

http://tinyurl.com/3xqfx7

Clay L. Shaw's Trial and the CIA

by Lawrence R. Houston

29 September 1967

MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence

SUBJECT: Clay L. Shaw's Trial and the Central Intelligence Agency

1. This memorandum is for information

2. The investigation of District Attorney Garrison of New Orleans into the assassination of President Kennedy, and his attack on the Warren Commission report, now focuses on one facet--the trial of Clay L. Shaw, who has been indicted for conspiracy to assassinate the President. In his public announcements Garrison has been careful not to reveal his theory of the trial. Technically, he could restrict himself to an attempt to prove a conspiracy among Shaw, Oswald, the pilot Ferrie, and possibly others without involving CIA at all. As we understand Louisiana law, Garrison will have to prove at least one overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and with Oswald and Ferrie both dead, we do not at the moment know of such an act which he could prove.

3. We speculate, therefore, that he will try to involve others and bring out testimony that they were involved in such things as the movement of arms and money in pursuance of the conspiracy. Again, conceivably, this could be done without involving CIA. Indeed, in his most recent pronouncements, Garrison has been concentrating on an unidentified group of Dallas oil men of the extreme right-wing type, who he says were the instigators, backers, and real controllers of the conspiracy.

He plays the recurring theme, however, that those who actually carried out the assassination were people who had been associated with CIA and that CIA had set up Oswald as the "patsy" to detract attention from the true assassins. He also says that CIA is a part of a giant conspiracy on the part of "the establishment" and the Dallas oil men to conceal the true facts. It would seem probable, therefore, that Garrison would attempt to involve CIA in the Shaw trial, and from what we know, he should be able to produce witnesses who can testify at least to some peripheral connection with his case. Despite the fact that Garrison's theories are basically and preposterously false, therefore, he may well be able to involve CIA in the Shaw trial.

4. Garrison has thrown out so many theories, names, and efforts in different contexts that it is difficult to construct a clear scenario, but the following speculations will serve to illustrate the problems with which we will be faced if Garrison pursues this course:

a. A witness, Carlos Quiroga, might testify that Ferrie was a friend of Sergio Arcacha Smith, who was associated with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front (CDRF) until January or February 1962 and that Ferrie and Arcacha Smith were involved in a cache of arms in 1961. Garrison attempted to extradite Arcacha Smith from Texas to testify before the Grand Jury but was not successful. [REDACTED]

b. Rudolph Ricardo Davis might testify about a training camp across the lake from New Orleans, possibly at Lacombe, Louisiana, run by a Cuban exile group (MDC) not affiliated with CIA, and that connected with this camp were Victor Paneque and Fernando Fernandez. Davis claims he met Oswald in the fall of 1963 in connection with anti-Castro activities. Paneque was also identified by Quiroga, the possible witness mentioned above, as having been in charge of the training camp at Lacombe, which Garrison falsely asserts was run by CIA. [REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

c. Garrison has questioned a Cuban named Santana after which Garrison inferred that Santana owned a rifle like Oswald's. Garrison alleges that Santana was in Dealy [sic] Plaza at the time of the assassination on orders of the alleged conspirators Shaw, Oswald, Ferrie, and Arcacha Smith. [REDACTED]

d. Garrison's office has questioned a Carlos Bringuier, who denied any CIA contact. But, according to reports, Garrison will try to introduce evidence that Bringuier had knowledge of an alleged affiliation of Oswald with CIA. Also, according to the Warren Commission report, there was an altercation and fight between Oswald and Bringuier in August 1963 and a radio debate between them on 21 August 1963 when Oswald identified himself as a Marxist. Bringuier had some contact with the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office [REDACTED]

e. Garrison has falsely stated that Gordon D. Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers, Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CIA. Garrison says he can prove that Novel, along with Arcacha Smith and others, robbed a munitions bunker at Houma, Louisiana at the instigation of CIA. Garrison may claim that this robbery was one of the overt acts of the conspiracy. Actually, Novel has never at any time had any association with the Agency nor has his lawyer, Stephen Plotkin.

f. Donald P. Norton has been questioned at length by Garrison, and Norton has falsely claimed in a newspaper article that he worked for CIA from 1957 to 1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him $50,000, which he took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald. Here again Garrison may claim that this is the overt act in the conspiracy. There is no truth in Norton's story in any respect.

5. We could continue to speculate about some of the other names involved, but the forgoing is sufficient to illustrate the potential problem. Certainly, the story of CIA's connections and interrelationships would be enough to at least confuse a jury thoroughly.

Shaw's lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility of the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no Government information which they can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA, is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel stories, which are wholly untrue, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Santana, and possibly Paneque, Bringuier, and others.

Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of Justice has so far taken the position that if any effort is made by either the prosecution or defense to involve CIA in the trial, the Government will claim executive privilege. This, too, can be turned by Garrison into a claim that it is part of the whole cover up by the establishment and particularly by CIA.

No alternative to the claim of privilege appears to be available, however. To protect the Government's position on privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to refute Garrison's claims and the testimony of his witnesses, as the Louisiana judge would almost certainly take the position that any such public statement would negate the privilege.

6. At the present time, therefore, there is no action we can recommend for the Director or the Agency to take. If during the trial it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information that could be refuted by CIA, we may be in for some difficult decisions. There is one positive aspect at the present time, which is that outside of Louisiana the U.S. press and public opinion appear to be extremely skeptical if not scornful of Garrison's allegations. We can only wait and see whether the trial will influence this attitude either way.

LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON

General Counsel

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/dead_kennedys/161824.html

ed

The Jim Garrison Tapes 1 of 9http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3vdsEN4rC5M

ed

The CIA and the Garrison Probe

The ill-fated investigation of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison into the Kennedy assassination was not running for long before it started to pull CIA assets into its sights. An internal CIA memo from September 1967 lists those claimed by Garrison to have Agency ties: Clay Shaw, Lawrence LaBorde, Emilio Santana, Victor Manuel Paneque, Alberto Fernandez Hechavarria, Carlos Bringuier, Gerald Patrick Hemming, Jack Rogers, William Dalzell, Schlumberger Corp., Donald Norton, and Gordon Novel. Only in the latter two cases did the CIA claim absolutely no relationship; others were at least contacts or in some cases more (Carlos Bringuier's DRE anti-Castro organization was "conceived, created, and funded by the CIA").

Clay Shaw, the man Garrison charged with conspiracy in the JFK murder, testified under oath "No, I have not" to the question "Mr. Shaw, have you ever worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?" The truth of this answer may depend on the meaning of the word "work." It was later revealed that Shaw had been an informant to the CIA's Domestic Contacts Service during the period 1948 to 1956. More interestingly, a document surfaced which seemed to imply that Shaw was cleared for "Project QK/ENCHANT." Other persons cleared for this project include J. Munroe Sullivan, Shaw's "alibi," Peter Maheu (son of Robert), and no less than CIA officer E. Howard Hunt. The nature of this project is still classified; what little information there is suggests that those cleared for the project may possibly have been "unwitting," and that it may have been related to gathering information from businessmen. Certainly there is no indication it was assassination-related. Author Bill Davy (Let Justice Be Done) also uncovered a CIA memo which appears to confirm Shaw's use of the alias "Clay Bertrand," which was central to the trial.

Whether Shaw had any deeper relationship with the Agency, perhaps related to the International Trade Mart he was Director of, remains unsubstantiated though disputed. Certainly the CIA was worried about his prosecution - CIA Director Helms' assistant Victor Marchetti revealed in the 1975 that Helms held meetings where he would ask "are we giving them all the help they need?" Counterintelligence officer Ray Rocca held meetings on 20 Sep 1967 and 26 Sep 1967, and incorrectly predicted that "Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw" (Shaw was acquitted after an hour of deliberation). The Agency also produced a series of 9 numbered memos tracking the Garrison investigation (see sidebar), and circulated to station chiefs a guidebook for defending the Warren Report, with specific strategies for refuting the critics.

Beyond the monitoring of Garrison, there have long been allegations that CIA agents infiltrated the DA's staff, which certainly produced its share of defectors and leakers. Many stories swirled around William Martin (who had been a former CIA contact), William Wood aka "Bill Boxley" (also former CIA, though known as such by Garrison), and anti-Castro exiles Bernardo de Torres and Alberto Fowler. The truth of the level of infiltration of Garrison's staff remains murky. The real attack on Garrison came from the mainstream media, including an NBC reporter who had formerly worked for the CIA, NSA, and Robert Kennedy - Walter Sheridan. The Justice Dept. also played a role, including taking the step of flying JFK autopsy doctor Boswell to New Orleans during the trial to be ready to rescue his floundering colleague, Dr. Finck.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination

On July 15, 1967, Garrison was granted thirty minutes of national television time to respond to an NBC documentary which was highly critical of his investigation. Here is his complete address to the nation in which he outlined his allegations:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCER:

The following time period has been made available to District Attorney Jim Garrison of New Orleans to reply to an NBC news program broadcast on June 19. [1967] In that program NBC News examined some of the methods used by Mr. Garrison in his investigation of what he charges was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Except for the opening and closing announcements, this program has been prepared under Mr. Garrison's sole supervision. Mr. Garrison.

JIM GARRISON:

Tonight I am going to talk to you about truths and about fairy tales; about justice and about injustice.

In the months to follow you are going to learn that many of the things

which some of the major news agencies have been telling you are untrue.

You are going to learn that although you are citizens of the United

States, information concerning the cause of the death of your President has been

withheld from you.

In the months to come you will learn to your own satisfaction that

President Kennedy was not killed by a lone assassin. You will learn that there

has been and continues to be a concerted effort to keep you from learning these

facts. And you will learn, I assure you, that what I have been trying to tell

you and what I am telling you tonight is true.

As children we become accustomed to hearing fairy tales. They are

always pleasant stories and they are comforting to hear because good always

triumphs over evil. At least this is the way it is in fairy tales.

Fairy tales are not dangerous for our children and are probably even

good for them up to a point. However, in the real world in which you and I must live, fairy tales are dangerous. They are dangerous because they are untrue. Anything which is untrue is dangerous.

And it is all the more dangerous when a fairy tale becomes accepted as

reality simply because it has an official seal of approval, or because honorable

men announce that you must believe it or because powerful elements of the press tell you that the fairy tale is true.

The conclusion of the Warren Report, that President Kennedy was killed

by a lone assassin, is a fairy tale. This does not mean that the men on the

Warren Commission were aware at the time, that their conclusion was totally

untrue, nor does it mean necessarily that these men had any sinister motives.

It does mean that the conclusion that no conspiracy existed, and that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin is a fiction, and a myth, and that it should be brought to an end.

The people of this country don't have to be protected from the truth. This country was not built on the idea that a handful of nobles, whether located in our Federal agencies in Washington D.C., or in the news agencies in New York should decide what was good for the people to know, and what they should not know. This is a totalitarian concept which presumes that the leaders of our

Federal government and the men in control of the powerful press media constitute a special elite which by virtue of their nobility and their brilliance, empower them to think for the people. Personally, I would rather put my confidence in the common sense of the people of this country.

The truth about the assassination of the President has been concealed from you long enough. Those forces which are fighting so hard today to tell you that they have examined the Warren Report and that everything is fine, and that our investigation has uncovered nothing, are not merely going to lose this fight

-- they have already lost it.

Now let me tell you why President Kennedy was murdered, and how he was murdered. I also want to give you a few examples which will show you how the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission is totally impossible.

President Kennedy was assassinated by men who sought to obtain a radical

change in our foreign policy--particularly with regard to Cuba. You recall that

under President Kennedy the Cold War began to thaw and there were new signs of an effort on the part of the Soviet Union and ourselves to understand each

other.

On the map, this [Cuba] appears to be merely a large island off the coast of Florida. But for many men it meant a good deal more than this. In 1963 a great variety of interests existed, which not only desired an American supported invasion of Castro's Cuba, but took it for granted that it was inevitable.

In the minds of many men, this island represented a tremendous emotional

landmark, because they had steered their courses toward it for so long, and with

such intensity.

In the fall of 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. It was followed by a pronounced new attitude towards Cuba on the part of the United States. Cuba, after this was no longer regarded as an enemy and was no longer regarded as fair game for those men who for one reason or another focused their attention

on this island. The new signs of understanding between Russia and the United

States continued to develop.

In June of 1963, President Kennedy, addressing students at the American

University in Washington told them, "we breathe the same air" as the Russians.

He said we should try to live together in peace on this Earth. Well at this point some individuals transferred their hostile attention from Fidel Castro to John F. Kennedy. They planned the President's assassination, and they planned it well.

The evidence indicates that he [President Kennedy] was shot at from two

different directions in the rear and also from the right front.

We know that shooting was coming from two separate directions in the rear because the President and Governor [John] Connally were hit in the back within a split second of each other--and this necessarily had to happen with two bullets coming from two different rifles.

We know that the President was being shot at from the grassy knoll area on the right front because most of the people in Dealey Plaza heard the shots coming from there--and because at least one of the President's wounds was an

entry wound from the front, and because men were seen running from the grassy

knoll area immediately afterwards.

That's why the idea of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of the

President is a fairy tale and should be brought to an end. If you--the people of the United States--will learn the truth; that the President was assassinated by men who were once connected with the Central Intelligence Agency, of course, this might reflect on the dignity of the CIA.

But I happen to believe that our form of government is strong enough to

survive the truth. I believe that you are entitled to the truth about how your

President was shot down in the streets and how it was done. Instead, some of

the most powerful news agencies we have in our country have worked hard to

convince you that everything is all right.

They do not tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints were not found on the gun which was supposed to have killed the President. And they do not tell you that nitrate tests exonerated Lee Oswald from the actual shooting by showing that he had not fired a rifle that day. And they do not tell you that it was virtually impossible for Oswald to have taken his fingerprints off the gun, hidden the gun, and gone down four flights of stairs by the time he was seen on the second floor.

Above all, they do not tell you of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony

that shots were coming from behind the stone wall on the grassy knoll. In a

choice between official dignity and the truth, dignity was given priority and so

you have not received the full truth.

This is why there continues to be hundreds of documents still hidden from your eyes and classified as secret, and some of them bear such titles as, "Lee Harvey Oswald's accessibility to information about the U-2"; the Central

Intelligence Agency's dossier on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the CIA file on Jack

Ruby. You have not been told that Lee Oswald was in the employ of United States intelligence agencies. But this was the case, and so I am telling you.

Why this young uneducated man had learned to speak Russian even before

he left the Marines, and there's only one way he could have learned that. Oswald had a higher security rating than his buddies in his Marine unit.

During 12 hours of questioning, to give you another example--12 hours of

questioning after the assassination--there is no transcript of Oswald's statements available for you to look at.

Now, it doesn't matter where you live, if somebody in your town steals a

1928 Hupmobile, what he says is written down when he is questioned. However, when the man who has [supposed to have] just killed the President of the United States is questioned for 12 hours, no transcript is available. There's nothing for you to look at.

And believe it or not, one of the explanations given is that the room was too small to include a stenographer.

And here's something else--this case has more accidental fires, more burning of paper than any murder case in history.

For example, when Oswald was questioned by a federal agent in August of

1963, the notes of the interview were later burned. You cannot see the notes

made by Commander Humes concerning the President's autopsy because he burned them too. One of the questioners of Lee Harvey Oswald during the 12-hour session burned his notes.

And similarly, when the Warren Commission contacted the State Department and said, with regard to Exhibit 948, "We notice that a one-page message from the CIA containing secret information is supposed to be attached to this file and it's missing. Would you please furnish us with a copy of this missing secret document?" The answer given to the Warren Commission was that the secret message about Oswald from the CIA was accidentally destroyed while being thermofaxed.

This spontaneous combustion, incidentally, occurred the day after the

President's assassination.

I am not even going to bother to dignify the foolishness which Newsweek

and NBC and some of the other news agencies have tried to make you believe about my office. I've been District Attorney of New Orleans for more than five years and we have never had a single case reversed because of improper methods on the part of our staff. Nor do we rush to judgment on half-baked evidence. And the proof of that is the fact that in more than five years not one defendant has walked out of the courtroom in a murder case with an acquittal. Nor have we lost a major case in five years.

Then what is their game? Their game is to fool you. These people want

the investigation stopped. They don't want a trial at all. Please believe me.

They don't think we're wrong in our investigation. Obviously, if our investigation was as haywire as they would like to have you think, then you

would not see such a coordinated barrage coming from the news centers in the

east. Why are they so concerned? Why is it that they cannot wait until the

trial comes in order to learn what the facts are? Why are they so anxious to

have their own trials?

They know very well that the witnesses they're presenting to you have

not been testifying under oath; that they're not being cross-examined as they

would be at a trial. And that the opportunities for a timely rebuttal by the

State of Louisiana which would exist at a trial have not been provided in their

untrue presentations. They know this. In my considered judgment there has been an effort to prejudice in advance the potential jurors in the trial of this case. As a matter of fact, the National Broadcasting Company has already had the trial. The defendant was found innocent, and the District Attorney was

convicted.

They announced across the nation that my methods were improper. But as

their stories, one by one, turn out to be false, they do not reveal this to you -- but simply search hopefully into new areas. For example, Newsweek magazine had

a feature article saying that my office attempted to bribe a man named Beauboeuf. It later turned out that his story and their article was totally untrue and the tapes which Newsweek described had been altered.

The police investigators in my office were found innocent of any

wrongdoing in a serious investigation conducted by the police department.

However, Newsweek has made virtually no mention of that.

Similarly, in its recent effort to make you think that my methods are

improper, NBC announced coast to coast that it had located the real Clay

Bertrand; that an NBC man had talked to him. This made every newspaper in the country and it inferred once again that in addition to using terrible methods we were off on a wild goose chase. Now when it turned out that this was a total

fabrication, and the man whom NBC identified as the real Clay Bertrand hotly

denied ever using the name, there was only coast to coast silence on NBC.

NBC presented a professional burglar, whom my office had just recently

convicted, and allowed him to make a plainly false presentation that we had

tried to get him to climb into the defendant's apartment and plant evidence there. The inference, of course, was that this particular defendant was too lofty a character to participate in my nefarious schemes.

However, recently, when we called him before the New Orleans Grand Jury

so that he could tell all about our new venture into the burglary business, he took the Fifth Amendment when asked if his statement on NBC was true. Once again, this was followed by a loud silence from coast to coast on NBC.

As a matter of fact, the Warren Commission's inquiry into the assassination started off with a completely unacceptable philosophy for a democracy like ours. One of its stated objectives was to calm the fears of the people about a conspiracy. But in our country, the government has no right to calm our fears any more than it has, for example, the right to excite our fears about Red China or about fluoridation or about birth control, or about anything.

There is no room in America for thought control of any kind, no matter how

benevolent the objective.

Personally, I don't want to be calm about the assassination of John F.

Kennedy. I don't want to be calm about a President of my country being shot

down in the streets. And I don't want to be calm about the fact that for reasons of public policy or national security or any other phony reason, the true facts have been withheld from the people of this country.

If the day has come when it is possible to shoot our President down

because some men disagree with his foreign policy--and the day has come that the moment his heart stops beating other considerations take over which conceal the total truth from the citizens of the United States, then the day has come when we have ceased to be a democracy.

I cannot believe that this is so, that the time has come in America when

the people no longer control their country.

Yet I must confess that I am appalled by the readiness with which some of the major press media have accepted the great fairy tale without hesitation --

rousing from their stupor only when they have learned that a District Attorney

was violating all the rules of etiquette and digging up the truth.

They are telling you that black is white when they tell you there is no

evidence of a conspiracy. They have to know well the significance of the

continued concealment of X-rays and autopsy pictures which if revealed to you

would show that the President was hit by rifle fire from more than one direction.

And they have to know well of the hundreds of documents which remain

classified, secret, and concealed from your view.

And they are making white black when they repeatedly state that my office has used improper methods. They have to know that no D.A.'s office in the United States would dream of operating in the way they suggest. They have

to know that for years I have been a strong defender of the rights of individuals.

They have to know all of this, but they have lent themselves to the all-out effort to convince you that the matter has been looked into and anyone who

raises a question now is irresponsible or a troublemaker or an enemy of the people.

What's that? You say that you are an American citizen and you want to see the autopsy X-rays and you want to see these hundreds of documents that have been withheld from your view and you want to know why these vital notes always ended up being burned?

What's the matter with you? Can't you take the word of these honorable

men, who have looked into it for you?

Let me just give you one example that shows you how impossible the

single assassination theory is -- which shows you the enormity of the fairy tale

which you are supposed to believe in.

Now this is the Warren Commission's own diagram of the route of the

bullet through Governor Connally.

[At this point in his presentation, Garrison displayed a diagram (CE 689) that

presented the Warren Commission's version of the path of the "magic bullet."]

The bullet had to take this route in order to cause the injuries which he received. Now the important thing to keep in mind is that the Warren Commission itself concedes that if this same bullet was not the one which also

went through President Kennedy, then there had to be someone else firing. And

the reason for that, just to put it very simply, is that the Zapruder film has shown that all the firing occurred in six seconds, and yet there were a total of eight wounds. Therefore this one bullet has to cause seven wounds, because one

missed and one was the fatal shot hitting the President. So by the Warren

Commission's own admission, prior to hitting the Governor, this bullet had to go

through President Kennedy who is sitting back here. Now you'll notice that the

Warren Commission did not attempt to include President Kennedy in the diagram -- they could not because of the total impossibility of this bullet having gone through the President also would be too obvious. In other words, by the

evidence of the Warren Commission itself, it is obvious that there was other

shooting going on in Dealey Plaza.

Consequently, the Warren Commission has officially concluded that before

this bullet came down from the sky as it had to, to hit Governor Connally in all

those different places, it entered President Kennedy's body from the rear and

came out of his neck.

I might add that the Warren Commission did not try to include the

President's picture because that would have shown that the course of the magic

bullet would have had to have gone up in the air and come down again in order to end up hitting the Governor

It is by selecting these little portions of each incident and by excluding other portions that the fairy tale is presented to you. However, if they had to show in one diagram the bullet entering the President and then continuing through Governor Connally, you would be able to see the total impossibility of this bullet causing seven wounds.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This section was in Garrison's script, but he skipped over it and it was not

broadcast. At the time, Garrison handed out copies of his statement to the

press. This portion was included in Garrison's handout, but he did not state

the words in the next two paragraphs over the air, although he intended to.]

And now, let's take a look at the magic bullet itself: [Exhibit 399].

This is the magic bullet which is supposed to have caused these wounds, without having its shape altered in any way or without even getting dirty. This bullet, which was found at Parkland Hospital, lying on the floor, went through President Kennedy's back and out of his neck, through Governor Connally's back and out of his chest, into the governor's wrist and out of his wrist and into the governor's leg.

[Garrison had a display with a photo of the "magic bullet."]

Don't ask me to explain to you how it was possible for this to have

occurred. They can't really explain it either. But you have to believe it

because if this untarnished bullet did not accomplish all this by itself, then

it means that someone else had to be shooting at the President and, of course,

this would conflict with the official version of the assassination.

[End of scripted, but unspoken portion of Garrison's presentation]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, this is just one of many examples which show that the Warren

Commission's conclusion is completely impossible. Bullet 399 is another

example, the fact that the cartridges in the Tippit case do not match at all the

bullets in Tippit's body--one after the other--if I had the total hour to reply which NBC used to try and discredit my office I would be able to go into more matters. But let's sum it up by saying that it is completely impossible to uphold the single assassin theory, if you look at it seriously. Anyone who has done their homework knows that the single assassin theory is totally impossible.

In the final analysis what has been done by the Warren Commission in its

investigation, is to take this series of implausibilities and to attempt to prove to you that each one of them is at least mathematically possible. Each one of them is mathematically possible, but not probable. However, it is not mathematically possible for all of these series of implausibilities to have occurred, and this is what they ask you to believe.

It's very much like telling you that it is mathematically possible, for

example, for an elephant to hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy. Of

course, this is implausible.

But what do they do? They produce an expert who says, "Yes I have made

a study of the situation, and this is not a full-grown elephant, and this is a

particularly tough kind of daisy. And, therefore, it was mathematically possible."

Now the official truth, as a result of such expert testimony--as a result of the creation of a series of mathematical possibilities is now no longer what actually happened in Dallas, but what has been officially approved.

Well, I say that the matter is not closed--not in this country. I say that the day has not yet arrived when the only reality is power and the ideals on which our country was built are merely words printed on paper.

I believe that those news agencies which have sought to imply that I would use improper methods to gain some sort of fictional political advantage have simply revealed their own cynicism. I believe that in this conflict between truth and power -- and this is exactly what it is all about--that power cannot possibly smash truth out of existence. The people in this country will not let that happen.

If we still live in the same country in which we were born, and I don't think it's changed that much; if this is still the country in which, in the words of our Pledge of Allegiance, there exists, "liberty and justice for all," then this attempt to conceal the full truth from you, in the end, has to be a failure.

In this case I have learned more about the human race than I really wanted to know. And I've learned more about some of our government agencies than I really wanted to know. And I've learned more about some of our press agencies than I cared to know. But I am still naive enough to believe that in America the people make the decisions, not a handful of men in the Washington and New York areas.

And I believe that the people of America want to know the entire truth

about how their President was shot down in the streets of Dallas.

And I want to assure you, that as long as I am alive, no one is going to

stop me from seeing that you obtain the full truth, and nothing less than the

full truth -- and no fairy tales.

ANNOUNCER:

Time for the preceding program was made available to District Attorney Jim Garrison of New Orleans. The program was prepared under his sole supervision. It constitutes his reply to an earlier NBC News program examining

some of the methods Mr. Garrison has used in his investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.

This program originated in the studios of WDSU-TV in New Orleans.b

:blink:Thank you John for the link, that works correctly and David for the print out, yesterday when i tried to post both, i felt that this so and so lap and the forum program colided, as nothing worked..thanks again.. b

deleted please remove...b

deleted

the series has 8 parts it has been pointed out, not 6 as David mentions...in his article...

http://www.salon.com...s_in_hollywood/

Many thanks gil...take care...b

http://www.hollywood...able-172357dull, unwatchable..etc..

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/kennedys-miniseries-review-dull-unwatchable-172357

Hello,

See - http://justiceforken...to-respond.html

From wsj.com

Struggling ReelzChannel Hopes a Hot Potato Becomes Hot Ticket

http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

By LAUREN A. E. SCHUKER

The Wall Street Journal

March 21, 2011

For one struggling cable channel, the controversial miniseries "The Kennedys" is a high-stakes bet to put itself on the mapa playbook that's increasingly common among fledging cable networks.

In February, the low-rated network ReelzChannel bought the U.S. broadcasting rights to the series about President John F. Kennedy and his family for about $7 million. The family-owned channel picked up the $25 million show after it was dumped by the History Channel and shunned by other networks amid an uproar over its portrayal of the Kennedys.

"The Kennedys" is an expensive gamble for ReelzChannel, which went on the air in 2006 but still loses some $10 million annually. "We knew what we were getting into when we bought this," says Stan E. Hubbard, chief executive of ReelzChannel, which is based in Albuquerque, N.M. "We just hope taking a risk will pay off."

There are signs it may be starting to.

Since acquiring "The Kennedys," ReelzChannel has nearly doubled its weekly viewers. In January, about three million people tuned in each week to watch Reelz, which mostly shows movies and programs about film. Now, about 5.5 million people watch the network each weeka spike that Mr. Hubbard attributes to advertising of "The Kennedys," which will debut April 3. Mr. Hubbard predicts that audience will double again, to 12 million people, after the eight episodes of "The Kennedys" air.

The channel also has inked new deals with cable operators, boosting its reach to 60 million homes, from about 54 million.

A number of cable channels recently have acquired flashy contentand talentin a bid to attract new viewers at a time when audiences are growing fragmented. Al Gore's Current TV recently spent millions to hire newscaster Keith Olbermann to help anchor its prime-time programming. Last year, Time Warner Inc.'s TBS engaged Conan O'Brien to do a late-night show. And even Oprah Winfrey will end her syndicated show later this year to focus on "OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network."

In many cases, taking on a hot potato is part of the bargain. "The Kennedys" first flared up about a year ago, when early scripts were leaked and spawned a barrage of criticism from filmmakers and historians, who alleged the serieswhich depicts President Kennedy cavorting with women in the White House as well as some of his political failuresconstituted "character assassination." When the History Channel dumped the show, speculation emerged that the Kennedy family had put pressure on History's owner, A&E Television Networks.

"ReelzChannel was a lifeboat when we were sinking," says "Kennedys" producer Joel Surnow, who previously produced "24."

Hubbard Broadcasting started ReelzChannel in 2006 and has invested more than $100 million to nurture it as part of its modest cupboard of TV and radio stations. ReelzChannel brings in about $15 million in annual revenue, entirely from ads. Mr. Hubbard is hoping that figure will double by the end of 2011, now that the network is drawing a larger audience.

"My hope is that this show puts a spotlight on our network that we've never had before, says Mr. Hubbard, whose family owns Hubbard Broadcasting. "We're betting that this will be a transformational event for us."

Mr. Hubbard is lavishing another $10 million on a marketing campaign to make sure people watch "The Kennedys"and the rest of the programming he's launching. That's a major commitment for a small network that subsists on advertising and doesn't charge a subscriber fee.

A single miniseries, even one as controversial as "The Kennedys," may not be sufficient to catapult ReelzChannel into the major leagues. "The competition for subscribers is intense," says Michael Nathanson, a media analyst for Nomura Securities. "You need more than one original series to really take off."

Mark Cuban, who considered acquiring "The Kennedys" for his HDNet cable network but ultimately decided it was too pricey, says the key for ReelzChannel will be to use "The Kennedys" and similar original programming to create enough demand so they can start charging distributors a subscriber fee.

"The reality for Reelz is that it's close to impossible to grow as a cable network. You might as well show videos on YouTube. The one way they can do it is through originals," he says.

"The challenge for Reelz will be to figure out who their demographic is following 'The Kennedys' and to develop enough other original content to get those people coming back," he adds.

To that end, ReelzChannel is developing additional fresh programming around "The Kennedys." This past Saturday, about two weeks before the series premiere, it aired a special feature about the Kennedy family's influence on American culture. Then, on the first night of the miniseries, ReelzChannel will host a special "pre-game" show featuring hosts from its regular programs such as film critic Leonard Maltin. And in the 10 p.m. hour slot after the week-long miniseries concludes on April 10, ReelzChannel will premiere a weekly show, hosted by John Salley, where celebrities are interviewed doing different activities.

While the controversy over the miniseries might help ReelzChannel attract eyeballs, it hasn't lured advertisers in the same way. With just a few weeks before the series airs, it hasn't secured any major sponsors.

To date, Mr. Hubbard's sales team has sold only about half the channel's advertising inventory for the series, to roughly a dozen different companies. ReelzChannel is continuing to sell slots but plans to fill whatever time remains with promotions for the network and public service announcements. "Some advertisers keep telling us, 'It's too politically hot' and that they can't risk polarizing their consumers," says Mr. Hubbard.

Such anxieties appear to originate from an inaccurate perception of "The Kennedys," says Mr. Hubbard. "Once people see this, they'll wonder what the big deal was. It's definitely not Kennedy bashing."

Episode Highlights From 'The Kennedys'

Note: This contains spoilers

EPISODE 1

The series opens on the evening before the 1960 presidential election, when John F. Kennedy was poised to become President over Richard Nixon. JFK's father, family patriarch Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., has enlisted the entire Kennedy clan to help his son beat Mr. Nixon, who was vice-president at the time. Flashbacks depict Joe Sr.'s ambition as he becomes ambassador to England in 1937, in his own mind a first step to his run for the White House. After Joe Sr. gives a speech encouraging appeasement of Hitler, he resigns once President Roosevelt's administration makes it clear that he has fallen out of sympathy with administration policies. Joe Sr. then transfers his political ambitions to his sons, Joe Jr., who is killed in combat, and then JFK.

EPISODE 2

A flashback chronicles JFK's first run for public office in 1946 when his father bribes voters in Charlestown, Massachusetts and grazes the limits of election law to seal JFK's Congressional victory.

EPISODE 3

Trouble quickly ensues when the Bay of Pigs invasion fails and Fidel Castro's troops overtake the guerrillas. JFK faces a choice: intervene and admit U.S. involvement or stay out of the battle, letting some of the guerrillas die. He chooses to do nothing, fearing that he might give the Soviet Union a pretext for military action. In a moment of weakness, when Jackie and the children are gone in Massachusetts, he spends the night in the White House with another womanJudith Campbellwho was at the same time the mistress of Chicago mafia boss Sam Giancana.

EPISODE 4

Meanwhile, Jackie grows increasingly stressed as JFK become sicker from back pain and fatigue, side-effects from his illnesses as well as various medications he's on.

EPISODE 5

The South erupts with civil rights protests, centering on the University of Mississippi, where a black student is barred from admission. JFK declares in a national address that the White House will enforce the Supreme Court's desegregation order but a race riot quickly breaks out on campus, killing two bystanders. Realizing that civil rights have become a serious issue, JFK sends in the National Guard, and the student is finally admitted. Meanwhile, JFK's father suffers a debilitating stroke and turns to his long-time mistress rather than his wife.

EPISODE 6

The possibility of war against Russia looms for the U.S. with the Cuban missile crisis. Jackie temporarily leaves JFK after discovering that he's left a White House concert to see one of his long-time lovers, Mary Meyer. His marriage in dire straits, JFK faces crisis in Cuba, where the Soviet Union has installed nuclear missiles. JFK considers ordering an air strike, but instead institutes a naval quarantine of the island. Finally, Khrushchev promises to remove the missiles from the island if JFK agrees not to invade Cuba. They strike a deal, concluding the crisis. Meanwhile, Jackie and the children rejoin JFK although she hasn't forgiven him.

EPISODE 7

It's November 22, 1963the last day of JFK's life. He's in Texas to meet with officials from the state's Democratic Party. A flashback shows Jackie giving birth, but the baby soon dies. Another flashback shows Bobby visiting Marilyn Monroe to persuade her to end her affair with JFK. She is later found dead of a drug overdose. Back in the present, JFK and Jackie share a moment of mutual love while en route to Dallas, where Lee Harvey Oswald awaits with his rifle. As the motorcade passes through the streets, Oswald shoots, killing JFK. Afterward, Lyndon Johnson calls Bobby, demanding that he immediately be sworn in as President.

EPISODE 8

Just a few days later, JFK is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Guilt overtakes Bobby, who worries that his investigations into the mafia could have caused his brother's death.

On June 5, 1968, after speaking in Los Angeles, Bobby is shot and killed. Alone in Hyannis Port, Joe and Rose reflect on the tragedies.

'Kennedys' Miniseries Review: Dull, Unwatchable, a 'Hamfisted Mess' - The Hollywood Reporterhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/kennedys-miniseries-review-dull-unwatchable-172357

<BR clear=all>

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/kennedys-miniseries-review-dull-unwatchable-172357

Thank you, Martin. You should know that I always appreciate the acuteness of your posts. Anything further on your work concerning the damage to the limo's windshield?

JT

Thank you Josiah!

The windshield...yes i do recall it.

In Altgens 6. Wasn't it?

Til today i have no logical explanation for this image irritation but i can be wrong with my guess that this

is a bullet damage. I've spend a lot of time and found no solution.

It's still in the same place as in Altgens 7 (the bullet damage) but thats not enough.

It can have another logical solution (in the background).

I don't know.

Thank you for adding me as as friend.

best to you

Martin

http://www.assassina....com/mack2.html a bit more re milicent cranor's information...compliments of the pope.. of dealey plaza.... there you go poo bear..

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

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. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Jack; thanks for your clarification, but rick was not one of the six, one time on Rich's that was proposed that he did, but he appeared and clarified for all that, no, he has not seen the other film........best b...there are just the 6.and milicent saw it at CBS ..b

ps..Jack, if you would like i can send you the partial thread from rich's that took place at that time, re the names the discussion you had with rich is included and the names were clarified...best b

Thanks. I guess I misremembered on Rick, although I remember some discussion with him about it.

Jack

HI JACK; i misremember often, no problem, i searched mary's for the fourth decade article said to have milicent's information but it only leads me back to a quote posted here on the E.F so no link for that, though i will have another go...it was not as i recalled either, see my mis. ..it was NBC apparently not cbs...according to this...thanks have a good day, best b..

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKzapruderF.htm9) Milicent Cranor claimed that she saw an unusual version of the Zapruder Film at the NBC archives in 1992. She studied this repeatedly in slow motion on high quality equipment.

Kennedy was hit in the right temple while Moorman and Jean Hill were visible in the background. JFK's head rotated slightly counterclockwise (i.e., left) - just a tic. A flap of skin or bone swung out on a vertical hinge. The hinge became horizontal and the flap became part of what looked like a giant clam. I never saw the famous "blob" nor did I see clouds of gore. I only saw thin translucent lines intersecting the head that scientists (in fluid dynamics) tell me are most likely condensation lines left in the wake of a bullet. One line suggested the shot came from Zapruder's immediate left. About 1/2 second later JFK went flat across Jackie's lap, not forward but leftward, away from the viewer. JFK then came back up to about where he was before. His head made two nearly imperceptible jerks, a tip to the left, a tip to the right. Then he bucked backward - but there was no head snap. He moved all of a piece, as if given a shove in the sternum.

p.s a mention here should be made that Zapruder stated a shot came from behind him, but he said from to his right...? B..

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

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. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Jack; thanks for your clarification, but rick was not one of the six, one time on Rich's that was proposed that he did, but he appeared and clarified for all that, no, he has not seen the other film........best b...there are just the 6.and milicent saw it at CBS ..b

ps..Jack, if you would like i can send you the partial thread from rich's that took place at that time, re the names the discussion you had with rich is included and the names were clarified...best b

David i have one answer for you, the reference to ferrie and the mice was made in Garrison's playboy iterview which is on line, later, it was revealed as far as i know, that information was past along to him by one of his investigators and was not true...fwtw...b

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

HI JIM; THANKS FOR THE REPLY, I WAS NOT MEANING THOSE BEING ACCUSED OR REFERRED TO AS W/C SUPPORTERS, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE Other end, sorry caps,please. excuse,,,,how many times, jack has presented his work refering to a specific, study he has made and been

called everything from crazy to a nut of an old man.....and worse, i thought i made myself clear on that end, i referred to jack specifically...at times, that is and has been very hard to believe, he defends himself well, but just the same, he has had to put up with such for many years..which is his right, though some others would deny that to him apparently,if they could have their way.i have also watched it for many years and will not give them a break....to my knowledge there are 6 i do not recall tousans on rich's coming forward stating they had seen it,the other zapruder, i do recall some trying to pretend they had, and being shot down by Rich as well as Greg, they more or less had to pass a high standard, of information, relating to such, i do recall even regular members some getting to the stage where they could see right through the phoneys, i never saw Greg nor Rich nor any of the others simply, accepting any without, qualifying.....perhaps my memories are not as clear as yours now, but sorry i do not recall what you have stated.....there were 6 who have seen the other zapruder film, not many, many, they the 6 were represented on Rich's and allowed their names to stand, william reymond was one, rich, and greg has come forward the other three, shall remain unamed,by myself anyway, until such time as they chose to speak out, gee i do not wonder why they never have on here...

i think it has been referred to in some articles mentioning it, within the alternative press,but the so called huge free media press would and could not, with a ten foot pole, as when it is definitely proven to be altered, doctored, played with,the crappy zappy or whatever one chooses to call it, i think perhaps if reported by the so called,free press, the american public just may stand up and have something to say, after all it was 16 million of their moneys that went to the Zapruder family, and now copyrights belong to the tsbd museum, that could be one reason why it has not been dealt with by them so far,also it would clearly be stating that the government was involved within all, as they always had pocession of such, after it left abraham's pocession, like perhaps they have also been told what to, and what not to report on, kind of like control of the press.like in Mockingbird.....as far as Josiah and Jim and their differences, that is of long standing, and goes back some years now, imo, i have always thought differences plainly spoken and brought to light, help clarify the research, rather than allow it to sit, undiscussed, and hidden within...that may be wrong to some people who do not like long nor lengthy discussions that get heated at times, as for what dr. jim finds convincing, imo is entirely up to him,the same in reference to josiah, i do not agree with all, within any ones studies that i can recall, not the alterations, nor certain other topics, nor books or such,but i do not presume, to tell them what they cannot believe nor what they do,or should, simply because i may not, i figure to each their own,as i will not argue with you nor stress the point by telling you that you must believe anything i do,sometimes, the less said by others the better, left to their own, at times the parties involved can come to an understanding, but not pressured by others strong vocal opinions, that they may see as interferrance at the time.the discussion is ongoing....left to their own, eventually they may,or decide such as to recognise such as each others work differences and carry on with their individual work, as they strike each others off their lists...imo.though i do believe that some play games, to deliberately muck up the research of others,as well as to take it off the board, which imo is dishonest,also some by playing the game of i am a ctr but post and act like a l/nr to throw all off kilter while they really are simply xxxxe disturbing and getting away with it, to get back at someone, for an imaginary insult, they cannot recall,unless they have deliberately created to pull off a set up, which has happened in the past as well..you know..this world would be such a boring place if all agreed and all were the same in their thoughts and beliefs, i think this particular thread has been one of the very best in so very long, much information has been presented by many, others opinions as well,which is stimulating, and has routed many to get back perhaps into their studies of this or another area of study, where and when accomplished they will decide and make up their own minds on what they may believe or not...but imo alteration is not a dirty word as some have and to do try their darndest to portray it, the government altered so much documentation, witness reports etc, it would be no problem for them to work on any film or photo,they had the facilities at the time and the people with the knowledge, so why would it ever be a surprise to some, i do not know, that would be childs play after what they have and had done...after all, they covered up an assassination of a President, nothing was out of their hands..nor ability,......... thanks again for the come back, we differ in some areas which imo is quite normal, but we sit on the same side.....imo....best b ps sorry i had to reply in order to edit this post...b