Greg Burnham Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Bill, Any "reconstruction film" that was so poorly shot in terms of misrepresenting the content would have been less than useless. Why would a so-called "reconstruction film" include so many errant events? Why would a "reconstruction film" fail so miserably to "reconstruct" what happened that day? If the events, as shown in such a reconstruction film, never happened, then WHY FILM such useless fictitious content in the first place? According to your theory, what event were they attempting to reconstruct by such a film? According to you, much of what was shown in the "reconstruction film" never happened. If so, it is such a lousy representation of reality, why would anyone call it a "RECONSTRUCTION FILM" ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Bill, Any "reconstruction film" that was so poorly shot in terms of misrepresenting the content would have been less than useless. Why would a so-called "reconstruction film" include so many errant events? Why would a "reconstruction film" fail so miserably to "reconstruct" what happened that day? If the events, as shown in such a reconstruction film, never happened, then WHY FILM such useless fictitious content in the first place? According to your theory, what event were they attempting to reconstruct by such a film? According to you, much of what was shown in the "reconstruction film" never happened. If so, it is such a lousy representation of reality, why would anyone call it a "RECONSTRUCTION FILM" ?? Actually my so-called theory considers all the various descriptions given by those who claimed to have seen it ... not to mention the lack of data offered by such individuals as to the date and location of the film viewing, not to mention the people who were present during this alleged viewing. I remember where I was and who I was with when Groden went on Geraldo Rivera's 'Goodnite America''. All these years and this group of 'other film viewers' can't be more forthcoming with specifics. They offer little to support their claims. All I have done is offer an explanation that allows them to at least appear sincere. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined... Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with? This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one? Ask yourself this: Why would the authorities ever NEED OR WANT to create a "film" of the crime when they already had a film (Zapruder's) of the crime in their possession? But, even assuming they sometimes did create film re-enactments in 1963 under specific circumstances (which is a stretch)--still-- why would they this time... since they already had an ACTUAL film of the crime now?? If Zapruder already filmed the crime, why "fake a film" of it? In a criminal investigation such a re-creation would be useless as it would be inadmissible in a court room. How could a re-enactment (on film) of a crime help when an actual film of the event is available? Sounds like it has more to do with the alleged film of the assassination than it has to do with the assassination. Just for "grins and giggles" watch the YouTube below. Imagine the authorities saying: "Let's make a re-construction film of this robbery that we already have on ACTUAL FILM from the convenience store because it will..." -- SHEESH, I can't even END THAT SENTENCE because it is too idiotic to contemplate long enough to come up with a stupid enough scenario! There is no justification for it. None. Edited December 4, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined... Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with? This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one? I do not believe that the alleged 'other film' was government sponsored, but rather a re-creation film for independent documentaries. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined... Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with? This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one? I do not believe that the alleged 'other film' was government sponsored, but rather a re-creation film for independent documentaries. Bill Bill quote '''Actually my so-called theory considers all the various descriptions given by those who claimed to have seen it ... '' Bill could you please post the comp.of that information for us,i do not have it and have never found it on the web, and i for one would like to know what all was said...the last i knew from Rich, was that he did not have them, the posted information from each, as the f had been hacked after and the info lost, so that is the why many have never had access to it...thanks,..b Edited December 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Bill, Bill, Bill...I mean Robert, Robert, Robert.... Who do you think created this re-enactment footage [see below]? Was it an amateur opportunist named Zapruder or a professional team paid by the US Government? You said you didn't think the "other film" was Government sponsored. Upon what do you base your unsupported assertion? Again, WHY did the US Government's Investigative Apparatus need a RE-CONSTRUCTION FILM to begin with IF they had ACTUAL, real time footage of the crime as it happened! Why? Why did they NEED THIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) Hi Greg. That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson. Why do it ? could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed. To test the sinle bullit theory alignnment. This image may be from the same test. May 1964 Edited December 4, 2010 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 One more re-creation image. I assume this guy is sighting in the snipers nest window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 One more re-creation image. I assume this guy is sighting in the snipers nest window. thanks robin great clarity, these are from the fbi re-enactment may 64 are they not..? thanks take care..b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) Hi Greg. That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson. Why do it ? could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed. Why? They had the ACTUAL FILM? Who cares what ANY OTHER SUBSTITUTE FILM would offer--when you have the original? Indeed, they had the original film itself and the original camera itself. To test the single bullet theory alignment. [edited original for spelling]Speculating, Robin...?? But, then again, so am I! Edited December 4, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Hi Greg. That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson. Why do it ? could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed. Why? They had the ACTUAL FILM? Who cares what ANY OTHER SUBSTITUTE FILM would offer--when you have the original? Indeed, they had the original film itself and the original camera itself. To test the single bullet theory alignment. [edited original for spelling]Speculating, Robin...?? But, then again, so am I! from the secret service comes this wee gem, seems they were showing the real zapper as a trainig film to the recruits...because it was very gory, more so than what we see...fyi.. From former Secret Service agent Marty Venker's book "Confessions of An Ex-Secret Service Agent" , pages 24-25: " [in Secret Service school] We'd also watch films of real-life assassinations. Naturally, the featured attraction was the home movie Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963. THEY SHOWED YOU THE GRUESOME VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC USUALLY DIDN'T SEE, WHERE PARTS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BRAIN SPRAYED ALL OVER JACKIE. Again and again, I watched that film. The instructors didn't want us to ever forget it [Emphasis added]." And, yet, Jackie is clean in appearance in the Z film we know of...? b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now