Jack White

Several of us know the identity of the researcher that Rich DellaRosa confided the FULL STORY of the OTHER FILM to.

Since Rich is now deceased, his security oath no longer applies, and I think Rich's confidante should reveal all the

details that Rich withheld. This would make Rich's story much more believable, since it would reveal places and times

the film was seen and what circumstances (which Rich led us to believe were military in nature).

I think the time is now appropriate.

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. 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

10-Frame GIF 1.6mb

Extremely interesting! But the time frame is too different. To me this is more indicative that Weigman may

have been used for reference by the animators.

Your GIF matching the "early" Z frame with Wiegman many seconds later is startling! Excellent find! It shows

that Wiegman appears to be on the same line of sight to this scene as Zapruder, an impossibility. Note the

fit of the shrubs especially.

Jack

What exactly is the origin of the Creation myth here - that Ferrie kept lab mice and bragged of cancer experiments? If it's Garrison's book, I'd like to check it out again and read the original reference.

Where was Garrison's office in the Mary Sherman murder investigation?

As I recall, maybe wrongly, Mary Sherman's death was never ruled a murder...maybe even an accident.

Does anyone know? I think it is Haslam who has turned her death into a murder.

Jack

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.

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

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

As Hitler proved, if the lie is big enough, it boggles the mind, and boggled minds refuse to believe the obvious.

This is best demonstrated by 911. That SEVEN buildings in the midst of Manhattan would all be destroyed in

a single day's attack is MIND BOGGLING, so most people refuse to consider it. They would prefer to believe

that 19 young arabs hijacked four airliners and flew them flawlessly into targets. Silly as that is, some prefer

to believe that instead of the obvious.

Jack

Jim...I think this is a very important proof of fabrication. I found a view of that side of the car

which shows the location of the chrome strip seen in Zapruder. It shows clearly exactly where

Connally is located in Zapruder...MUCH TOO FAR TO THE REAR OF THE JUMP SEAT.

Of course the viewpoint is not the same, but I think he appears to be much too close to the

side of the limo for line of sight to matter. His head is much too big for him to be more toward

the center of the limo (note JFK in other photo), which is more proof of monkey business.

What you are calling his head in frame 372 is actually a combination of his head PLUS Nellie's head, as they join, while she is in the process of pulling him down on to her lap.

Re: The flower head. The flowers are over the top of his head.

There is absolutely no fakery going on in any of the points which you raised.

Check the Connally location in 337 and then 372 only 35 frames later and explain how Connally

was able to go from the falling position in 337 to an upright position in 372, while changing

the orientation of his shoulders 180 degrees. You are engaging in wishful thinking in seeing

what you want to see. In 372 Nellie is not seen, especially not seen "pulling him down". In frame

337 Connally has NO HEAD. I subjected the frame to extreme computer enhancement, and

no head can be seen, only green and yellow where his head should be. Unexplained is the

triangular shape (seen in this frame only) which looks like a reflection on a jagged piece of

glass. Explain this shape. Explain how Connally moved from the jump seat to the back

seat in 35 frames. Good luck.

Thanks to Jim for posting the studies. The forum still refuses my images.

Jack

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

I could not disagree more with this last statement. And it shows just how polarizing this has become.

Robert Groden does not beleive the film is forged. Yet, he is one of the foremost advocates for this hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, Fetzer uses his poster of the Dallas doctors to make this point.

Gary Aguilar does not believe the film is forged--or he is at least an agnostic. Yet, he is one of the foremost advocates of this hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, Fetzer uses his chart to make this point.

So then how does this issue "define the whole film alteration debate"?

It does not. If you ask Groden about the hole in the back of Kennedy's head in the Z film, he will say, "Yes you can see it. Take a look at especially the hard cover version of High Treason, the last plate."' How do I know he will say this? He told me this himself. And he will tell you that also Don. Did you ask him?

Bill Miller's coning frames are very compelling in this regard also.

So no, this sample above does not define the debate. Only with Fetzer does it define the debate since he has this blood feud with TInk. Kelley thanks TInk for his answers to Burnham's questions, and in Feetzer's world it is butt kissing. I answer Burnham's questions in advance from TInk's previous statements, then I am a shill. Even though Tink's eventual answers were what I predicted they would be.

I don't even know if Fetzer realizes just what a polarizing force he has become in the JFK community. He first did this with 9-11 where he alienated the more distinguished and responsible critics like Steve Jones and Mike Green. Now by forcing the issue on Z film alteration, and making it an unbelievably stupid all or nothing issue, he does the same thing here. I mean this is almost as dumb as what he did with Judy Baker.

And here is the bottom line: WHY???

Neither of these issues, Baker or Z film animation, are worth what he puts into them. I mean what mobility have they given the JFK case? What will the other side do to these issues? Anyone want to take a guess?

To do what he does here and with Baker, to split, insult and polarize the community simply because he is personally invested in the issue, and has this feud with Tink is to me, a guy who has lost his sense of balance and proportion. There are so many other things that the ARRB did a very good job on that further our cause without this baggage.

But as with Baker, he persists. Don Quixote with a buzzsaw.

BTW, he still buys Baker.

Whew.

Having studied the JFK matter for nearly 50 years, I am more than a casual observer. I have studied all the books

and all the views of all the authors and researchers. Therefore I feel qualified to judge their work. This is a preface

to saying that the people with the greatest OVERALL GRASP of what happened are Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs.

The greatest SPECIALISTS are John Armstrong (LHO) and David Lifton (medical). None of these are perfect, and in

fact have several weaknesses...but all are at least 90 percent on target.

On 911, few can come close to Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood.

Jack

I am still not being allowed to post images, so I have asked Dr. Fetzer to post two new studies here.

Jack

Not a single chemtrail all day today...then TWO parallel in the west at sunset.

Jack

Occupants of the limo either "duck for cover" after the head shot, or are thrown forward due to sudden braking ?

I've seen it questioned as due to sudden acceleration after the stop during the head shot, meaning I suppose that the stop occurs while Connally is turning and writhing, then he flies forward as Greer hits the gas. But I wasn't there and can't judge.

Good thread.

You have it backward.

Brakes throw people forward (Newton).

Gas (acceleration) throws people backward (Newton).

Jack

This is what you are seeing?

I'm investigating the matter now.

ETA: By the way, when reporting faults it is very helpful to describe exactly what you were trying to do, and what happened. A screenshot can also be useful. You guys probably don't see any difference, but to me there is a great difference between an attachment being refused / rejected, and the upload failing.

Thanks!

That is exactly what I see when I upload an attachment.

Jack

Will some moderator look into the problem and find why my attachments are being rejected?

It is NOT a matter of space; I have deleted several years worth of images in order to have

room for new attachments.

Thanks.

Jack

btw - you're dead on with zapruder...

can't even make out his glasses... not in ONE image

...if the angle of the film you saw was "basically" zapruder's, and we know if a camera is not on the same plane the image has to look different, and the vast amount of panning the scene entails, dont we have to conclude THE film was taken on that pedastal from which all films were ultimately made? and you got to see a film much closer in generation to the film made that day, than anyone else...

"no matter how paranoid you are, what the government is really doing is much worse than you can imagine"

If the z film is animated, as we believe, and if based on previously exposed guide films to get perspective from pedestal correct,

then the "z film" was not shot by Zapruder, but created by animators from accurate data.

Jack

I find it refreshing that we have a member such as Greg who has seen a different copy of the film.I would just like to ask you Greg is how close would you estimate

that the person filming the motorcade was to Abraham Zapruder?

I have no idea. I have no faith that Zapruder was even filming from there that day! I believe I was the first person to point out that there is no clear photo available

that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zapruder was where he said he was. Jack White and I are very close friends. Back in 1998, Jack and I butted heads due

to my insistence that the Moorman polaroid was suspect. Back then, Jack was convinced of its authenticity. Yet, if Gary Mack can claim to have "found" Badge Man

amongst the visual obstructions in that alleged location--and was able to "clarify" his presence photographically through enhancements performed at his request

by Jack, then you would think that Zapruder should be very clearly seen by comparison since he was standing in the open (not hiding behind anything) in broad

daylight. Yet, his face is completely unidentifiable. Of course, one could argue that that is because the camera was in front of his face while he was filming. Fine...

except that you can't even tell he is holding a camera! If you look at the men on the steps--you can tell that THEY ARE MEN ON THE STEPS and you can make out

a few more details, such as, their clothing, etc. But, if you didn't already "know" that a man was allegedly standing on the pedestal holding a camera to his face with

his secretary behind (or in front of him--The Sitzman Waltz) --be honest--would you have ever guessed it? I definitely wouldn't have dreamed it. Possible? Yes.

But, even after enhancement it is far too obscure to conclude that it is Zappy or anyone "holding a camera". Moreover, as seen in the BRONSON slide, even if Zappy

(or whoever) was on the pedestal with a movie camera with their secretary (SITZMAN) standing DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF HIM, blocking the camera's view--to the

subject--well, you get the picture (no pun intended) -- but Zappy and Sitzy couldn't have "gotten the picture" under those conditions.

How in the world did Mack find "little old BM" almost in shadows, camouflaged by surrounding foliage to some degree (remember it's in Black & White), and fairly

TINY...itsy-bitsy...as it were--yet cannot "enhance" Zapruder and Sitzman so that we can be sure they are where they claimed to have been? Mack "found" the BM

image on a "hunch" I suppose, even WITHOUT the help of enhancement? Wow.

But, back to your question... I don't know if this film was an unaltered version of the so-called original Zapruder film. That is a possibility. The angle was very similar,

if not identical, to that of the extant film. But--with the introduction of a "new and improved" Stemmon's sign--we may never know.

Gary found BADGEMAN by putting a slide on the TV station monitor and adjusting brightness and contrast.

Jack

Beautiful blue skies over Fort Worth today. No chemtrails in more than two weeks. But no rain in more than a month.

Jack

What OTHER frames show is not relevant. Nellie, an adult woman sitting on a tiny seat in a cramped space in the back of the limo,

completely disappears. Yet her testimony is that she grabbed John and pulled him down into her lap. Nellie is not seen in the

frames in question, and thin "John" sits upright far away from her side of the limo. The animators figured all eyes would be on

Jackie on the trunk, so why bother to get Nellie in the photo. Nobody will notice.

Jack

Jack, you probably just need to delete some of your older (or larger) picture uploads.

Not so...I have done that and HAVE PLENTY OF ATTACHMENT ROOM.

I attempted to add another image, but the forum is blocking image uploads from me. Will someone post it for me? It is on the DPF forum.

The file name is WHERESNELLIE.

Jack

I have noticed something very weird about the sequence of frames animated by Robin.

Other opinions invited.

Jack

THE ATTACHMENT REFUSES TO UPLOAD. I WILL ATTEMPT TO FIND WHY.

....

I JUST UPLOADED THE SAME FILE AT THE DPF WITH NO PROBLEM. THE UPLOAD PROBLEM

IS ON THIS FORUM.

Jack, you misunderstand. I've looked at it for nearly five years (since I put these together in 2006) and have never come up with an explanation.

John

An explanation for WHAT? I do not see ANYTHING. I don't understand OR misunderstand.

Jack

OK, here's a fun question for you all:

What's going up the back of the woman in the short dark grey skirt about four to the right of the lamp post before frame 100 in the following?

John

(in Silicon Valley this fine evening)

John...I give up. You will have to tell us.

Jack

Is it just me, or does any time he's challenged on something, Mr. White's reply is a variant of a 5year-old's "NO YOU!"?

Correct. IT IS JUST YOU.

All I have done is ask for photos showing the rover attached to the LM, being lowered, being assembled, being

outfitted...anything. Burton continues to stonewall...BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH PHOTOS. What are YOUR

QUALIFICATIONS in this discussion? How are you qualified to insult me as infantile? I question YOUR motives.

Put up or shut up.

Jack

Notice how Jack tries to change the subject, move the goalposts, gish-gallop, in fact anything except admit he was wrong.

He sits there arguing that black is white and fails to see why people realise he is incompetent with respect to Apollo.

Burton sidesteps the question and attempts to change the subject. All he has to do is produce a photo of ANY LRV

ON ANY APOLLO MISSION WHICH IS ATTACHED IN POSITION ON THE OUTSIDE OF A LUNAR MODULE, AND ANY

PHOTO OF ANY ASTRONAUTS ASSEMBLING A ROVER FROM ANY MISSION. TAKING SUCH PHOTOS WOULD HAVE

BEEN A GIANT STEP FOR MANKIND. I cannot locate such photos from any of the three missions. I must have missed

them. Please give me the file numbers so I can look at them. When I see them, I will admit being mistaken.

Jack

SHOW me the PLENTY OF PHOTOS of rover stowed and being deployed on the MOON.

SHOW me the PLENTY OF PHOTOS of rover stowed and being deployed on the MOON.

SHOW me the PLENTY OF PHOTOS of rover stowed and being deployed on the MOON.

SHOW me the PLENTY OF PHOTOS of rover stowed and being deployed on the MOON.

on the MOON

Jack,

I posted links to photos showing the rover in it's stowed position.

Did you look at them?

I posted inks to film of the rover being deployed.

Did you watch it?

Todd

Houston is in Texas, NOT ON THE MOON. The photos have no proven provenance, and even could have

been shot recently, since the text indicates they were discovered recently.

Jack