Is the "Other" film a hoax?

[Dean Hagerman]

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

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

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

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

Yes Rich said the Limo turn was in the "other" film.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

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

That's a good point, Greg ... let us see if we can draw a logical response from the available evidence.

To start with, Zapruder did have at his office following the assassination what is now known as the Zapruder film. Sitzman supports being on the pedestal with Zapruder. Just prior to taking the film, Zapruder got Sitzman to turn around and face him as she stood with the Hester's ... that is truly Sitzman's face on the woman who turns to the camera. The Hester's knew Sitzman and Zapruder if my memory serves me correctly and not once have they ever said that the man and woman on the pedestal was not Abraham Zapruder and Sitzman.

But we want an image that ID's the couple ... for what ever reason I do not know because there will always be someone who will then say that it was possible that look-a-likes could have been used, which means that Zapruder, Sitzman, and both Hester's were part of the plot to have someone take a film that Zapruder could have taken himself. The throw crap at the wall scenario starts to take shape.

Following the shooting, the film record shows the two people on the pedestal getting off of it (Pascall's film catches Zapruder reaching the ground as he dismounts the pedestal). Sitzman and Zapruder or the look-a-likes then enter the shelter where they are met by the Hester's or should we suggest that it really wasn't the Hester's at all, but rather they were substituted with look-a-likes too?

Then in Trask book where I may have seen it ... there is a good clear up close image of Sitzman standing near the pedestal giving an interview to a reporter about what she had just witnessed. So while it may be said that during the shooting there was no up-close clear images of Zapruder or Sitzman's face, the same can be said about that really being Toni Foster on the south pasture. In fact, there is not a good clear image of Betzner, Croft, or Willis taking photos of the assassination ... so now someone can say that the other film shows these witnesses to be someone other than who we thought they were.

If the above sounds silly, then its because it is an extension of the same lack of common sense that would suggest that Zapruder and Sitzman were not on the pedestal when all the evidence points to the contrary. Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Bill,

I never did receive an answer to my question about the detail in the flag logo. Not from you nor anyone else.

Once again, I'm waiting for anyone to supply a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's 6, which possesses the same detail in the limo flag, which the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 11-23-63.

It's not a difficult request if other versions previously supplied are even close to the original.

chris

Maybe you had received an answer to your question, but didn't catch it. You can post your image again or link it because I am not interested in wasting lots of time with it. I do know that it was not uncommon for newspapers to airbrush photos so to sharpen them up where ever possible. I would have to see your images again, feel free to post a link to them or repost them again.

Bill

Bill,

The detail in the flag between the red arrows.

As I asked previously, if someone has a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's with this detail, I'm all ears.

It does not exist in any of the best copies that have been submitted so far.

chris

[Doug Weldon]

Bill,

I never did receive an answer to my question about the detail in the flag logo. Not from you nor anyone else.

Once again, I'm waiting for anyone to supply a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's 6, which possesses the same detail in the limo flag, which the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 11-23-63.

It's not a difficult request if other versions previously supplied are even close to the original.

chris

Maybe you had received an answer to your question, but didn't catch it. You can post your image again or link it because I am not interested in wasting lots of time with it. I do know that it was not uncommon for newspapers to airbrush photos so to sharpen them up where ever possible. I would have to see your images again, feel free to post a link to them or repost them again.

Bill

Bill,

The detail in the flag between the red arrows.

As I asked previously, if someone has a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's with this detail, I'm all ears.

It does not exist in any of the best copies that have been submitted so far.

chris

Chris:

If you watch my presentation in Minnesota (on you-tube) you will see that there were several versions of Altgen's 6.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Burnham]

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

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

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

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

Bill

[Robin Unger]

Bill,

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

That's a good point, Greg ... let us see if we can draw a logical response from the available evidence.

To start with, Zapruder did have at his office following the assassination what is now known as the Zapruder film. Sitzman supports being on the pedestal with Zapruder. Just prior to taking the film, Zapruder got Sitzman to turn around and face him as she stood with the Hester's ... that is truly Sitzman's face on the woman who turns to the camera. The Hester's knew Sitzman and Zapruder if my memory serves me correctly and not once have they ever said that the man and woman on the pedestal was not Abraham Zapruder and Sitzman.

But we want an image that ID's the couple ... for what ever reason I do not know because there will always be someone who will then say that it was possible that look-a-likes could have been used, which means that Zapruder, Sitzman, and both Hester's were part of the plot to have someone take a film that Zapruder could have taken himself. The throw crap at the wall scenario starts to take shape.

Following the shooting, the film record shows the two people on the pedestal getting off of it (Pascall's film catches Zapruder reaching the ground as he dismounts the pedestal). Sitzman and Zapruder or the look-a-likes then enter the shelter where they are met by the Hester's or should we suggest that it really wasn't the Hester's at all, but rather they were substituted with look-a-likes too?

Then in Trask book where I may have seen it ... there is a good clear up close image of Sitzman standing near the pedestal giving an interview to a reporter about what she had just witnessed. So while it may be said that during the shooting there was no up-close clear images of Zapruder or Sitzman's face, the same can be said about that really being Toni Foster on the south pasture. In fact, there is not a good clear image of Betzner, Croft, or Willis taking photos of the assassination ... so now someone can say that the other film shows these witnesses to be someone other than who we thought they were.

If the above sounds silly, then its because it is an extension of the same lack of common sense that would suggest that Zapruder and Sitzman were not on the pedestal when all the evidence points to the contrary. Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Bill Miller

Murray scan showing Sitzman standing behind the pedestal with her back to the camera.

her black head scarf can be seen falling across the back of her neck, similar to the way we see it in Altgens 8

Large Scan.

Click on thumbnail to view full size.

Sitzman seen in Skaggs & Sitzman being interviewed while standing at the pedestal

Click on thumbnail to view full size:

Edited November 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Bernice Moore]

Thanks Robin, nice,,,Marilyn never mentioned these two stops that she apparently made on her way back to Zapruder's offfice, as far as i have uncovered, many thanks..take care b..

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Robin, nice,,,Marilyn never mentioned these two stops that she apparently made on her way back to Zapruder's offfice, as far as i have uncovered, many thanks..take care b..

Quote:

Marilyn never mentioned these two stops that she apparently made on her way back to Zapruder's offfice

Hi B

No thats right she didn't.

I think she must have hung around for some considerable time.

She can also be seen in one of the other murray photo's and Willis 8 and 15

standing out the front of the TSBD

Not sure of the exact Timeline for Willis 15

but i am certain it was a considerable time period after the assassination.

Click on thumbnail to view full size:

Edited November 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Bernice

Credit to you for this image:

Sitzman basically says that Zapruder shot through on her and left her standing on the pedestal alone.

No mention of her meeting Zapruder and the hesters in the pergola entrance.

Also she can be seen with Zapruder standing on the ground in Bell, and not left high and dry standing on the pedestal by herself.

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Duncan.

Personally i think Sitzman's full of crap.

I take anything she has to say with a grain of salt ( Including her description of the black couple on the bench )

Sitzman also say's that Zapruder had Vertigo which is why he asked her to climb up on the pedestal.

Yet in the opening shots of the Zapruder film, Zapruder appears to be filming Sitzman and the hesters unassisted from atop the pedestal, looking down on them.

Credit: Rick Needham ( Stabilized Gif )

Zapruder frames provided by me

Edited November 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[David Andrews]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited November 16, 2010 by David Andrews

[Greg Burnham]

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

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

Greg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Miller]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg, with all due respect ... you have just described an event that must be a hoax or a recreation that someone has confused as being an actual film of JFK's assassination. Let me point out one of the flaws in that description ....

I only know of Roy Truly mentioning the car appearing to have almost hit the curb, but from his location I am certain that he was mistaken for two main reasons ...

1) Truly was the only person that I am aware of that claimed the car appeared to almost hit the curb during the turn onto Elm Street. This is one reason why I believe that Truly was mistaken.

2) The other reason is that the Doorman film (sprocket hole version) for an instance shows the limo in the middle of the street when making that turn. The Towner film also shows the limo in the center lane as it completed its turn. The limo's left tire is right near the south lane stripe which means the limo is in the center lane. I welcome anyone to contact the Museum and ask Gary Mack to confirm what these films show for both originals are currently there.

So if I had to make an educated guess based on the evidence, I would believe that Truly was merely mistaken before I would believe that an elaborate alteration of two films had taken place over such a non-eventful event.

Maybe Robin Unger has the frames available to show this?

The limo comes to a COMPLETE STOP before reaching the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll, during the head shot.

Moorman's Polaroid #5 taken within 3/18s of a second of the head shot shows the car to be in motion. This is shown by the emblems on the hub-caps as they are blurred from being in motion. It was Craig Lamson who made me aware of this years ago.

Bill Miller

Edited November 16, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

The detail in the flag between the red arrows.

As I asked previously, if someone has a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's with this detail, I'm all ears.

It does not exist in any of the best copies that have been submitted so far.

chris

I personally wouldn't waste time on obviously altered Newspaper prints. The one above has had the rear view mirror mount removed and I am certain that JFK didn't have such a narrow head ... just to name a few obvious alterations/air brush attempts. The clearest Altgens 6 print I have seen is the print Josiah Thompson posted long ago ... that would be the print that doesn't show JFK's head as narrow as most pan fish. If a newspaper print shows more detail in the flag than Josiah's print, then it has been retouched, especially when other signs of retouching are seen.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Bill Miller