Jack White

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? I do not understand the question. Jack PS On second thought, I guess you mean people like you and me. Only 6 or 7 people claim to have seen the other film. After they realized it was NOT the Z film, they DID research to whatever extent possible to determine what it was they saw. However, it was years later, and the trails were cold. The important things are: 1. None was aware of the stories of the others, and came forward independently. 2. All said the film was superior in quality to the Z film. 3. All said the film showed the limo turning the corner. 4. All said the film showed the limo coming to a stop. 5. All said the film was from the same OR ALMOST SAME viewpoint as Zapruder. That is everything we know. Where do we go from there? One other thing...William Reymond said he was told that the film he saw several times WAS THE H.L. HUNT COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM. However, this is just hearsay, since the film he described matches "the other film." One might say all 6 persons were mistaken. The odds of that? As for the researcher that DellaRosa told a more complete version to, the answer lies with whatever the agreement was between Rich and that person. Jack

You must be new to this. Those who viewed the other film have been discussed for many years. From memory: Rich DellaRosa...viewed numerous times under classified circumstances. William Reymond...viewed numerous times courtesy of former intelligence agent. Dan Marvin...viewed as a CIA training film. Scott Meyer...Dallas researcher. Milicent Cranor...saw it at a TV network. Gregory Burnham...member of this forum. ...and I think one more. All of them reported: LIMO TURNING CORNER FROM HOUSTON TO ELM LIMO COMING TO STOP FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS Jack

The error has not been fixed.

.My image that I uploaded will not post.

Read what Dr. Mantik says. Jack

No, I did not say that. I said last year that I had hundreds of books relating to the JFK assassination and I had read about 12 of them cover to cover. I have skimmed them all and I read selected passages and key chapters of them. For about 3 years I have studied the JFK assassination intensively. I have read a lot of the best stuff online, not in a book. I read a lot of the new stuff: LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, JFK and the Unspeakable, Brothers, etc. Those books are built on 45 years+ of JFK research and you get the best of the old stuff included in them. The best of the early works has been in is in the new stuff, and the worst of the early works usually gets kicked out and ignored over time. I have Six Seconds in Dallas, but I do not plan on reading the whole thing. And shouldn't that title be 8.5 Seconds in Dallas? See what I mean about the new books being a better use of time? As for lists of Best Books on the JFK Assassination and Worst Books on the JFK Assassination, for the main part, I have gotten these recommendations from OTHER RESEARCHERS! I just take all their picks, stick them on a list, and rank them according to my personal, subjective preference. When I first started my research, I called about 10 of the most experienced JFK researchers and asked what 10 books I should buy, then I bought them all off Amazon. I spoke to folks like Dawn Meredith, Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Martin Shackleford just to name a few. I learned the LBJ angle early on. A lot of times when I see Jim DiEugenio recommend a book I will put it on the list almost automatically; for example JFK: Ordeal in Africa or Battling Wall Street by Gibson. That is one thing Dean Haggerman has not figured out: some of the "best" books on the JFK assassination are books that are not completely about the JFK assassination. There is a tremendous about of critical knowledge in the "tangential" books ... books about Lyndon Johnson, Clint Murchison, H.L. Hunt, John McCloy, James Angleton, GHW Bush, Nelson Rockefeller... books that talk about JFK's foreign policy battles, his battles with Wall Street, books on the Council on Foreign Relations (Perloff) or Bilderberg (Tucker), books that talk about the Kennedy brothers wildly dysfunctional and yes weird personal lives like Heynmann's Bobby and Jackie. I do think it is weird for a guy like RFK, with 10 kids, to be having a torrid affair with Jackie, his own brother's wife. I've been told that this affair began PRE-JFK assassination! The Dark Side of Camelot is another fine book, written by a lone nutter, that gives us tremendous insight into the JFK assassination. I just recently bought someone's entire JFK collection to add to my already quite signficant one. Included was some rare books like With Malice by lone nutter Meyers and Jesse Curry's JFK Assassination file. I already have Harvey and Lee by Armstrong - a book that I rate half genius and half pure baloney. Many JFK books are like that: great stuff mixed in with crap. You have to read critically. Reading "Defrauding America" by Rodney Stich and googling "Chip Tatum Pegasus" will give you great insights into the JFK assassination. Because those books are all about the "secret team" the government within the government that Fletcher Prouty and Oliver North have spoken about. The way I read a book is I underline them and mark them up, writing comments in the margins, putting stars and astericks near key sentences. Dean Haggerman, by contrast, I imagine just stares at his copy of Six Seconds in Dallas over and over again. I am marking up, writing all over Harvey and Lee and Hagerman is just worshipping/staring at Sylvia Meagher book. My JFK books are working copies, not collector's items. Sometimes in a JFK peripheral book there will be just once sentence that will tell you all you need to know. For example in Clint, there is the anecdote about the usurper President Lyndon Johnson calling his benefactor Clint Murchison in December, 1963, and Clint telling the maid that he can't talk now because he is taking a nap. That shows who has hierarchy. Just one golden nugget that reveals so much. Or in Kai Bird's book The Chairman on John J. McCloy, there are 2-3 sentences about John J. McCloy going dove hunting with Clint Murchison on Clint's ranch in Mexico in the summer of 1963. Key evidence of the close personal ties of Texas oil men with the PEAK of post WWII US intelligence. Remember that the next time DiEugenio tells you LBJ and Texas oil men had no role in the JFK assassination. They were the largest players - the CIA worked for those guys. Or Robert Dallek's book Flawed Giant where he recounts the little known, but extremely significant friendship between Lyndon Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller and how LBJ was secretly supporting Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring 1968. I consider that to be of BLOCKBUSTER importance; most JFK researchers have no idea of such close ties between LBJ and the Rockefellers who I think were BOTH involved in the JFK assassination (if Lansdale was, then Allen Dulles was, if Dulles was then Nelson Rockefeller was ... then Henry Kissinger MIGHT have been. Got that?) Hey, Haggerman, is "Flawed Giant" on your list of JFK books? It ought to be. So the way I learn about the 1963 Coup d'Etat is that I read broadly, but I rarely read a whole book, especially the older ones; they just are not worth your time. The quality newer ones incorporate the best of the old research. I do recommend a book like History Will Not Absolve Us; it has stuff in there like Castro's speech on 11/23/63 deconstructing the JFK Assassination that NEED to be copied and put on the internet. I learn by reading a few books, reading the best of many internet articles, skimming and reading selective chapters of many, many books. I will watch videos including Peter Jennings Beyond Conspiracy, which I highly recommend as an example of purely distilled CIA propaganda delivered by Bilderberger/CFR Peter Jennings 40 years post JFK assassination. That is why understanding the role of the Council on Foreign Relations in the JFK murder/cover up is so important; many of the key folks interviewed in that film are CFR members. By the way, based on my extensively reading and study in the JFK assassination, I do currently NOT think the Zapruder Film has been fabricated or faked. Notice I used the word "currently" because I constantly change/update my views based on new information/analysis. Basically, Robert Groden has it right, and you Zapruder film alterationists are barking up the wrong tree. Woof woof. That is my *current* take. Morrow is a book COLLECTOR, not a reader. However, he does read REVIEWS, and judges books by his feelings about the reviewer. Hmmmmm. Jack

JFK slumped over to his left. Gravity caused the blood to flow down to the left from the head opening. People should use common sense...if they have any. Jack

The above is better than the below? Really? It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound. Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa). Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat? What Paul points out has always been one of the unexplainable mysteries of witness observations which nobody ever followed up. Jack

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement: “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.] I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat. What nonsense, Paul. What "Drehm" "seemed" to think does not relate whatsoever to the point I was making, namely that BREHM did not see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. And I guess you think the term "weaselly" means accurate. Here are Brehm's first statements. WHERE OH WHERE does he say he saw an explosion from the back of the head? Charles Brehm and his small son Joe were several yards to Moorman’s and Hill’s right and can be seen in the Zapruder, Nix and Moorman films, as well as the Bond photo. (11-22-63 notes on an interview of Brehm by a Dallas Times-Herald reporter immediately after the shooting, as presented in The Zapruder Film by David Wrone, 2003) "The shots came from in front of or beside of the President." (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times Herald) "The first time he slumped and the second one really blasted him," These were the words of Charles Drehm...Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President." (11-22-63 (NBC?) radio interview found on the internet) “I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him. There is some discussion now as to whether there was one or two shots that hit him, but the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot and just at that time, which was probably a few seconds later the second shot rang out and he just absolutely went down into the seat of the car. There was a third shot that went and by that time I had grabbed my little five year old boy who was with me and ran away from the scene of the thing. But the only thing that I did witness and something I'm sorry I did witness very honestly was the look on his face when that shot hit, and the look again on him and his wife's face when the shots started to ring out. And it was very obviously that he was hit. The first two shots that were heard. The first one hit the president—there was no doubt whatsoever--because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go. I did not witness Governor Connally’s being hit.” (11-22-63 WBAP television interview first broadcast 3:15 CST, as shown in Rush to Judgment) “Unfortunately I was probably 15-20 feet away from the President when it happened…He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat and his wife reached up toward him as he was slumping down and the second shot went off and it just knocked him down in the seat...Two shots..." (When asked if he saw the shooter) "No, sir, I did not see the man who did it. All I did was look in the man's face when he was shot there and saw that expression on his face and he grabbed himself and slide, and the second one whenever it went--I’m positive that it hit him--I hope it didn't--but I'm positive it hit him and he went all the way down in the car. Then they speeded up and I didn't know what was going on so I just grabbed the boy and fell on him in hopes that there wasn't a maniac around.” (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “He was waving and the first shot hit him, and then that awful look crossed his face,” Brehm said.” (11-25-63 FBI report, 22H837-838) ‘‘He and his son stood right at the curb on the grass and saw the President’s car take a wide swing as it turned left into Elm Street. When the President’s automobile was very close to him and he could see the President’s face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly, at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. Brehm stated that he was in military service and has had experience with bolt-action rifles and he expressed his opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots. Brehm stated he definitely knew that the President had been shot and he recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Immediately after the third shot rang out, Brehm pushed his son down on the grass and for the moment was more concerned with the safety of his son who might be hit by any wild gunfire which might follow. Brehm expressed the opinion that between the first and third shots, the president’s car only traveled some 10 to 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the president was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway underpass.” Speer accelerates his ever diminishing credibility!

I "do not want" the shot to come from any particular place. I talked to Newman on three occasions. I reported where he said the head shot came from. Speer is the one who wants it to come from a certain place. In talking to me, Newman was very specific; Speer has NOT talked to Newman and makes up what he wants Newman to say. Nonsense. Speer is rapidly losing all credibility. Jack

No chemtrails here for more than a week...but yesterday I saw a CONTRAIL. It quickly evaporated close behind the plane. Jack

Though I believe that Morrow has made some valid points about LBJ, in recent postings he has revealed himself to be a very shallow thinker with an agenda. Jim's rebuttal is on target. Jack

There are only A FEW frames. Remember, Bronson was operating BOTH a movie camera AND a 35mm camera. The Groden collection contains what I presume to be the entire Bronson movie. Jack

My response: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense). Accusing me of lying (skewed recollections) is the last straw with Speer. This is absurd. I spent about 20 minutes (on the cited occasion) questioning Newman. I had done the same before twice, years earlier. What he said was very clear and vivid. I made up nothing, changed nothing, only paraphrased some of his replies. I reported what he said. I have NO views to support. Speer's changing the interpretation of what Newman said about the origin of the shots is despicable. He has ALWAYS consistently said the shots came from behind him, and that he was "in the line of fire". All photos of the Newman family show that directly behind them was the pergola and picket fence. He did not say anything about "a blowout of Kennedy's ear", but instead said that is where a bullet struck (right temple). I discussed this with him on THREE OCCASIONS, years apart. He always used the same analogy..."like a baseball bat hit him in the right temple"...never mentioning a "blowout". Speer makes up things to fit his theories. Newman is very clear. The head shot came from the right front, directly over his head, and hit JFK in the right temple. Ask him today; that is what he will say. I doubt that Speer has ever talked to Newman, especially three times...yet he disputes those who have. But he is willing to put words in Newman's mouth to make him say what fits Speer's preconceived theories. Despicable acts of someone with an agenda. Jack

And that's because the head wound evidence is tainted beyond redemption. He may have been hit in the head four times for all we know. The high likelihood of pre-autopsy surgery to the head makes the finding of fact impossible in regards to the number of head shots. Indeed. The unchallenged T3 back wound evidence forces nutters like Vince Bugliosi to tell whopping lies about the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. Prevarications are not arguments, no matter how many times they are repeated, or by whom. I suggest that this is a good reference on CEREBELLUM, especially the illustrations: Cerebellum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the smaller region in the lower part of the brain. For the large region of the brain, see Cerebrum. Brain: Cerebellum A human brain, with the cerebellum colored in purple Drawing of the human brain, showing cerebellum and pons Part of Metencephalon Artery SCA, AICA, PICA Vein superior, inferior NeuroLex ID birnlex_1489 The cerebellum (Latin for little brain) is a region of the brain that plays an important role in motor control. It is also involved in some cognitive functions such as attention and language, and probably in some emotional functions such as regulating fear and pleasure responses.[1] Its movement-related functions are the most clearly understood, however. The cerebellum does not initiate movement, but it contributes to coordination, precision, and accurate timing. It receives input from sensory systems and from other parts of the brain and spinal cord, and integrates these inputs to fine tune motor activity.[2] Because of this fine-tuning function, damage to the cerebellum does not cause paralysis, but instead produces disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning.[2] In terms of anatomy, the cerebellum has the appearance of a separate structure attached to the bottom of the brain, tucked underneath the cerebral hemispheres. The surface of the cerebellum is covered with finely spaced parallel grooves, in striking contrast to the broad irregular convolutions of the cerebral cortex. These parallel grooves conceal the fact that the cerebellum is actually a continuous thin layer of neural tissue (the cerebellar cortex), tightly folded in the style of an accordion. Within this thin layer are several types of neurons with a highly regular arrangement, the most important being Purkinje cells and granule cells. This complex neural network gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost the entirety of its output is directed to a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum. In addition to its direct role in motor control, the cerebellum also is necessary for several types of motor learning, the most notable one being learning to adjust to changes in sensorimotor relationships. Several theoretical models have been developed to explain sensorimotor calibration in terms of synaptic plasticity within the cerebellum. Most of them derive from early models formulated by David Marr and James Albus, which were motivated by the observation that each cerebellar Purkinje cell receives two dramatically different types of input: On one hand, thousands of inputs from parallel fibers, each individually very weak; on the other hand, input from one single climbing fiber, which is, however, so strong that a single climbing fiber action potential will reliably cause a target Purkinje cell to fire a burst of action potentials. The basic concept of the Marr-Albus theory is that the climbing fiber serves as a "teaching signal", which induces a long-lasting change in the strength of synchronously activated parallel fiber inputs. Observations of long-term depression in parallel fiber inputs have provided support for theories of this type, but their validity remains controversial.

Thanks, Jim. At the time of my last message, your posting of the image had not yet appeared, or I would not have requested it again. What everyone is ignoring is the area at left which has been drastically lightened. It clearly shows a bullet hole © just to the right of the EOP. Just beyond the bullet hole is a small glass specimen jar apparently containing a few metal fragments. In my opinion, the Harper fragment came from the area of this fist-sized hole. The view looks inside the empty cranium. The inshoot hole can be seen in the right temporal area, and the beveled outshoot hole is seen on the yellow line from the inshoot. To me it is very clear. I do not understand why this explanation is not obvious to all. Jack PS. I forgot to mention that the reflected scalp is to the top of the picture, which is labeled TOP OF HEAD.

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks. Jack PS. WILL SOMEONE DETERMINE WHY I AM BLOCKED FROM POSTING IMAGES????????????

I remember reading that the CEREBELLUM is a distinctly different COLOR than the CEREBRUM, so the doctors could not possibly mistake the two. A little research could verify this. Jack

http://aircrap.org/brilliant-video-of-chemtrails-over-arizona-and-their-toxic-effects/331135/

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

Jim...since you believe Haslam, do you also support Baker? Jack

BRAVO! 100 PERCENT!

Robin...that xray depiction show's Lifton's SURGERY OF THE TOP OF THE HEAD, not the damage seen at Parkland. Jack

Jim...your third quote is most strange. All the witnesses report Chaney moving forward. The photos don't show it. You prefer to believe FORGED PHOTOS which are being questioned rather than the witnesses, whose first day testimony would take precedence over faked photos which they impeach. Jack

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